Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Defence Diversification Agency

Mr. David Hanson: What progress he is making with regard to the establishment of a defence diversification agency. [45218]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We are now considering the responses to our consultative Green Paper on the establishment of a defence diversification agency. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement before the summer recess on the way ahead.

Mr. Hanson: Has my hon. Friend seen recent research by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which showed that Britain has failed to capitalise commercially on its scientific success in the past? Does he agree that one of the reasons why we need a defence diversification agency is so that we can use the skills and talents in the defence sector to help boost and promote Britain's commercial success abroad?

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pamphlet he mentions rightly draws attention to our failure to disseminate and diversify technical and scientific knowledge. It has been a failing across British industry, particularly in the scientific sector. British industry has suffered as a result and we believe that a defence diversification agency would play a major role in redressing the position.

Procurement

Mr. Syd Rapson: If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for acquisition reform. [45220]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As part of the strategic defence review, we have conducted a ruthless examination of our procurement processes in conjunction with industry and independent consultants. Our aim is to ensure faster, cheaper and better delivery of our future requirements.

Mr. Rapson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are considerable savings to be made by reforming the way in which the Ministry of Defence procures equipment? Will the issue be at the forefront of thinking when the White Paper is produced, along with the policy on disposal, following the Chancellor's pressure to release land that we do not require in order to gain capital receipts?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must be better ways of procuring equipment than those that have been used in the past. I am not willing to tolerate the accusation that the MOD is a ministry of waste, but, all too often, equipment has been delivered late and has been overpriced and of inadequate quality. That must change and that is why I have made it one of the principle priorities of the strategic defence review to explore ways in which we can reverse that record and get better equipment faster.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question on the disposal of assets, we are interested in retaining assets only so long as they contribute to the defence effort and the proper and effective discharge of our responsibilities in office. We have no interest in hoarding land, assets or equipment that we do not require if their sale can provide a better defence for the nation.

Land Mines

Mr. Bob Russell: What representations he has received on progress in the destruction of United Kingdom land mine stocks; and if he will make a statement. [45221]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): My Department has received a number of representations about the destruction of UK anti-personnel land mine stocks. We are committed to ratifying the Ottawa convention. In the past year alone, we have destroyed some 450,000 anti-personnel land mines—some 50 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Russell: I certainly welcome the final part of the Secretary of State's answer. However, there is great unhappiness about the fact that Britain has not ratified the treaty, as promised. Britain wishes to have a world role in defence matters. Until we ratify the treaty, many other countries will not do so either. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will bring pressure to bear elsewhere within the Government to get the treaty signed?

Mr. Robertson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we desire to ratify the Ottawa treaty as quickly as we can and to make sure that we are among the number of countries required to ratify it before it can come into force. There is a very congested legislative programme because this is the first Session of the new Parliament, but, as and when the time is available, the measure will receive considerable priority.
The fact that we have not yet found the time in our busy schedule to ratify the treaty does not mean that we have not started to fulfil the obligations that we took on when we signed it. To date, we have destroyed almost 50 per cent. of Britain's stocks of anti-personnel land mines. I am way ahead of the target that I set myself for destroying all our stocks by 2000, which would have been


some five to six years ahead of the target that we set in Ottawa. Combined with all the other initiatives in which we are involved, our commitment to the cause of ridding the world of anti-personnel land mines is a record of which I am extremely proud.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: We hear what the Secretary of State says, but what sort of figure does our country cut in the outside world when we wring our hands and say that we cannot ratify because of a shortage of parliamentary time? How much parliamentary time is needed for what we understand is an agreed measure?

Mr. Robertson: It is certainly an agreed measure in principle, but there are a number of potentially contentious details which may require deliberation. We shall move ahead as quickly as we can. Since October last year, when the treaty was signed in Ottawa, only 19 countries have been able to complete their ratification procedures. Not all of them have moved with the speed and effectiveness that we have shown in meeting the obligations placed on us. My Department has taken significant initiatives on humanitarian de-mining, which have been loudly praised by other countries that are equally involved.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given the Government's much-vaunted ethical foreign policy, is the Secretary of State not embarrassed by the fact that the Government have not yet ratified the agreement? Does he expect to be able to ratify it by the first anniversary of the death of the Princess of Wales? If the Government cannot do so, their resolve in such matters will be shown to be not as strong as they pretend.

Mr. Robertson: I do not want to strike an acrimonious note on a subject with which we usually deal cordially and on which there is consensus, but the hon. Gentleman has a brass neck to say that. When the Conservatives were in government last year, they were not in favour of signing the Ottawa treaty or doing away with anti-personnel land mines. At the earliest opportunity, we banned the export, manufacture, import and transfer of anti-personnel land mines; the previous Government would not do that. We have signed the Ottawa treaty; the previous Government refused to do so. In the past year, we have already destroyed almost half the stocks of anti-personnel land mines. We shall ratify the treaty when the time is available, but we have already acted on our obligations, unlike other parties, which did not think that we should ratify.

Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Secretary of State agree, in a slightly less partisan manner, that it is necessary to ratify the treaty before the recess, or the anniversary of the death of the princess? What better way is there to honour her memory?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is never partisan in his questions. I appreciate the concern that we should live up to our obligations; we shall. We are in the first Session of a new Parliament. There is considerable congestion in the legislative timetable. We shall ratify the treaty as quickly as possible when there is time. I venture to suggest that the princess, who gave so much attention to the cause of eliminating anti-personnel land mines,

would have been more interested in the efforts and energy of the Government to ensure that countries that have not yet signed the treaty do so, and to get rid of the stocks of anti-personnel land mines, which, as I have already announced, we are doing more quickly than any other country.

Territorial Army

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the future role of the Territorial Army. [45223]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The future role of the Territorial Army is being considered as part of the strategic defence review. No decisions have yet been taken, but I am confident that the review will result in a TA that is more usable and more relevant.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I must press him further. If the Government decide to close 172 TA centres—more than one third of the total— resulting in a reduction of up to 18,000 in the number of part-time soldiers, how does the Minister intend to preserve the link between civilian life and the armed forces, which many hon. Members on both sides of the House regard as vital?

Dr. Reid: I regard that link as very important as well, and did so when the Conservative party cut the Territorial Army by 30,000—not by the speculated 15,000 which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There will be a number of stages to our examination of the TA, one of which will be to agree the principles on which the footprint—the geographical spread of estates and units—is discussed and decided. I am glad to say that those principles have been agreed between the Regular Army and the TA, and there is now the basis for us to examine in some detail in the coming months the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has answered in part the questions that I was going to ask him, but I should like to press him further on the future of the TA. In the past, it has been necessary, on occasion, to deploy members of the TA as individuals. Will he assure the House that in any future major crisis, members of the TA will be deployed not as individuals but within existing serving units, and will serve in that way?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the past half century, in spite of the contribution of the TA—for which every hon. Member is eternally grateful—'TA
members have never yet been called up in a formed unit. One of the ways in which we could place the TA more centrally in our defence thinking, make it more practically useful to our defence effort and increase its importance within our defence configuration is by considering calling up the Territorial Army in formed units in less than a full-scale war. I will give sympathetic consideration to that proposal, as it would make the TA more relevant in the future that it ever has been in the past.

Mr. John Maples: Does the Minister agree with the views of the Army's Director of Infantry as set out in his letter to the


Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, published in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, that cutting the TA to 40,000 would jeopardise recruitment and
erode the foundations on which the Regular Army is built & impair the nation's ability to generate the manning required for unpredictable levels of fighting power, undermining the strategic defence of the country"?

Dr. Reid: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench for his first Question Time there, and his first lesson is never to quote out of context. I have the letter in front of me. Brigadier Monro—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to his letter of 19 February—was asking for such contentions to be discussed openly, and for transparency in debating the issues which he raised. That, among other contributions, was taken seriously. Since then, we have had three debates in the House on those matters and I have answered several hundred letters and questions on them. No single subject has been given more scrutiny—as Brigadier Monro, others and I wanted—in the strategic defence review than the Territorial Army.
Secondly, as a result of those contributions, the figure which we are proposing for the TA—which will be announced in the not-too-distant future—is much greater than was initially proposed to me. Therefore, I agree entirely with the sentiments which have been expressed, which we have taken into account in our considerations.

Mr. Maples: The House will wait with bated breath for the long-overdue review and to see exactly what the Minister meant by that answer. I must add that I quoted accurately from Brigadier Monro's letter.
Is not the Secretary of State's problem that what started as a strategic defence review has become part of the comprehensive spending review? He has been told to find cuts, and the TA seems an easy victim. Is it also true—as we are told—that he rather naively offered £500 million of cuts as a pre-emptive concession? Predictably, the Treasury banked that £500 million and is looking for a little more. That is a rotten negotiating technique, and apparently the country's defences will suffer for it. Has the Director of Infantry not realised some of the consequences of the direction that Government policy is taking? When what is rapidly becoming the Treasury's defence review is published, will not the rest of the country realise those consequences too?

Dr. Reid: It is not the Secretary of State who is the problem, but the shadow Secretary of State—he knows all about Treasury-led defence reviews, as he was a Minister at the Treasury when, in the 10 years up to last year, the defence budget was cut by 30 per cent., the personnel in each of the armed forces was cut by 32 per cent. and the Territorial Army was cut by 30 per cent. None of us needs to take lectures on Treasury-led reviews from him.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the Minister for the Armed Forces not being rather dismissive about the letter? It was not any old letter, but one from the Director of Infantry to the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command—it was not from someone promoting a private or special interest. Brigadier Monro says that the future of the Territorial Army is
inextricably linked to the long term health of the Regular Army",

and that
there is little point in reducing the TA £ to insignificance, whilst hoping to man an enhanced regular Infantry.
Are those not serious and substantial criticisms of the Government's proposals, which need to be taken more seriously than the Minister has done today?

Dr. Reid: No. I have the letter in front of me; it is dated 19 February, which I think, even using my rude mathematics, was about four months ago. Since then, all the points that the brigadier correctly made have been fully met. He did not want an insignificant TA; I have trebled the figures that were then being considered, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would know if he had watched the documentary on the strategic defence review. He also asked for transparency; the House has had three debates on the Territorial Army. So seriously did I take the suggestions that I not only paid attention to the letter and put right the problems, but discussed the whole issue of the TA with, among other people, the brigadier's father—indeed, I have met all the family.

Abbey Wood, South Gloucestershire

Mr. Steve Webb: What plans he has for employment levels at the Ministry's offices at Abbey Wood in South Gloucestershire. [45226]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Under plans already announced, it is intended that the transfer of staff from the Ships Support Agency to the Ministry's offices at Abbey Wood be completed by around the end of 2001–02. The impact of the strategic defence review may change the size and numbers of the units occupying the offices, but those offices should remain fully occupied by my Department.

Mr. Webb: Is the Minister aware that more than 2,000 people at Abbey Wood, many of whom are my constituents, have shown their loyalty to the Ministry of Defence by uprooting their homes and families to relocate there? Does he accept that those people deserve to be shown loyalty in return?

Mr. Speliar: Absolutely; I understand that, and we are grateful for the work that those people undertake. They understand that there is evolution and change in the acquisition process. In many cases, that change has been based on suggestions that they have made, which are strongly supported and welcomed by many who work at Abbey Wood. Announcements have been made about a steady reduction of staff over the next four years as part of the drive for increased efficiency. However, we understand the human problems that may arise, especially for those who have relocated; those problems will be sympathetically considered in the broader context of the reorganisation of work at Abbey Wood.

Mr. James Gray: The Minister announced last week that he would remove the final 370 jobs from RN Copenacre in my constituency to Abbey Wood by 2001. When will he announce whether the Defence Vetting Agency will be based at RN Copenacre as a replacement and, if the replacement is not to be the DVA, what it will be?

Mr. Spellar: That announcement will be made, with a number of others, after the completion of the strategic defence review. We will consider all the options; as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are a number of possibilities, of which he has mentioned only one.

Beef

Mr. Barry Gardiner: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to the purchase of British beef. [45227]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Our food supply contractor is bound to seek the best market price for beef under the terms of its contract and is also required to give full consideration to British products. As I advised the House on 1 June, the European Commission has recently approved a regulation allowing access to intervention stocks of British beef for use by the armed forces at competitive prices. That should allow our contractor to increase substantially the amount of British beef supplied to our forces in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gardiner: I should be grateful if, subsequent to that answer, my hon. Friend would tell me what percentage of the stocks purchased henceforth by his Department will be of British origin.

Mr. Spellar: We expect that it will be a considerably increased percentage. I am reluctant to go into the final figure, but we are looking at—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It will be in the defence review.

Mr. Spellar: Actually, we will not know until we have looked at the contracts, which is probably the better way of doing it, rather than speaking first and reflecting later. In the light of discussions with our contractors, we expect a considerable percentage increase. Also, we have been analysing the acceptability of intervention beef, which has gone down very well in tests—I have tried it myself.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps unwilling to talk about future percentages, can he clarify the exact percentages at this stage? Does he envisage a doubling or a trebling?

Mr. Spellar: It would probably be a little difficult to have a trebling, as that might take us over 100 per cent.; at the moment, it is something over 30 per cent. for beef, because of a number of measures which we have taken. We are at 100 per cent. for pork. We do not do well in the percentage for lamb—we have been in discussions with farmers to increase that percentage, possibly on the basis of long-term contracts.
We are engaging in discussions with the farmers, and we realise that it is an important issue for them, but we are extremely pleased that colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been able to negotiate with the Commission to get a major movement on a substantial increase in the percentage of beef coming from British sources via intervention stock.

Bosnia

Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on the number of British troops in Bosnia. [45229]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Last week, the United Nations Security Council, under resolution 1174, authorised the extension of the stabilisation force's mandate for another year. I can today announce that the UK contribution to the follow-on SFOR force will be around 4,800 troops in Bosnia and Croatia, together with some 350 personnel based in the SFOR headquarters and Italy. We expect to remain the second largest contributor after the United States.

Mr. Beard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is vital that the forces stay in Bosnia as long as they are needed to prevent a reversion to the blood spilling that preceded the Dayton agreement? Can he say what steps NATO is contemplating to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to prevent Serbian expansion into Macedonia? Does he expect British ground troops to be committed to any such further NATO operations?

Mr. Robertson: On my hon. Friend's first point, he is absolutely right. Although Bosnia has left the headlines for the moment, there is little doubt in anyone's mind that, if it were not for the presence of NATO-led SFOR troops, there could easily be a return to the violence, hatred and bloodshed that we saw earlier this decade. When I go to Bosnia next Monday, I will be taking—I hope on behalf of the whole House—our commendations and congratulations to the British troops who serve so well, professionally and bravely in that part of the world, who have brought peace where there was war, and who, through their stabilisation efforts, are ensuring that democracy and a greater degree of inter-ethnic communality is beginning to emerge once again.
My hon. Friend mentioned Kosovo, which was part of the former Yugoslavia. Of course, we are worried about the violence that is erupting in that other part of the Balkans. That is why, in the past fortnight, NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers have paid such careful attention to that province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The violence that is on-going there is completely disproportionate to the sort of terrorist threat that comes from the separatist extremists who are attacking the Belgrade authorities.
We will not tolerate that level of violence. That is why NATO has made it clear that all military options—excluding none—are being examined with a view to deployment if the violence will not stop and if President Milosevic will not return to the political process that would restore normal living to that part of his country.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am sure that the Secretary of State agree with the individual soldiers will and airmen and the members of the chain of command who briefed the Select Committee on Defence on our recent visit to Germany about the effects of operational overstretch and their threat to our long-term military effectiveness. Will he restrain the Prime Minister from lobbying fellow world leaders to take on extra operational commitments without a proper increase in the defence


budget? Will he explain how that threat to operational commitments and our military effectiveness will be helped by a cut of at least £500 million a year in the defence budget? Will he at least confirm that the commitment to Bosnia which he has announced today will be funded by the Foreign Office from the reserve, and not from the defence budget?

Mr. Robertson: Of course I am aware of overstretch and over-commitment. That is what I inherited from the previous Government, to whom the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser and who, by their hollowing out, contributed to the overstretch and created the over-commitments with which we must deal. The brunt of the strategic defence review was designed to address the problems that the hon. Gentleman's Government left behind for us to tackle. I am well aware of the need to balance our capabilities with our commitments, but we also have obligations on the international stage.
Although commanders in Bosnia and Germany would have told the hon. Gentleman and the Defence Committee about the problems, they would also have told him about some of the suggestions that have been made for resolving them. They would have told him, too, of their deep commitment to ensuring that the problems of Kosovo do not spill over into neighbouring countries, and into the wider region. In the strategic defence review, we have made sure that our country's foreign policy objectives will establish the capabilities of our armed forces. However, if that can be done by more efficient use of our resources, the country will expect us to do so.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend say how close we are to achieving the desired objectives in Bosnia? If we are not there yet, will my right hon. Friend suggest what time scale he foresees for the finding of an acceptable solution, and for when we might see the withdrawal of British troops?

Mr. Robertson: It would be a wiser, or a rasher, man than I who would make predictions about the attainment of objectives in Bosnia. All I can say is that the figures which I have announced for our troop commitment to Bosnia show a reduction in the numbers that were there for the past year. As progress is made towards normalisation and democratisation in Bosnia, I hope that there will be further reductions. We are there not as a permanent, long-term occupation force, but to allow democratic and civilised standards to grow again in that country.
Progress is being made towards Bosnia-wide elections in September. Dramatic improvements are occurring: for example, the problem of having a common vehicle licence number plate has been one of the biggest issues dividing the entities during the past few years, but that has been introduced; a common currency has been established; and even a common flag has been adopted. We are, quite remarkably, moving towards the objectives which were set, and I hope that, in the foreseeable future, we will see British troops back here or doing similar work, with as much commitment and as many rewards, in other parts of the world.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State has confirmed that the United Kingdom is providing the second largest number of troops in Bosnia. In the context

of the strategic defence review, will we have a sufficient number of troops to meet any realistic and reasonable United Nations requirements of the United Kingdom, or will our United Nations commitments be tailored to the amount of money that the Ministry of Defence will have left after the Treasury has mauled its budget?

Mr. Robertson: We see here another Tory ex-Minister revisiting the scenes of his crimes. Their year out of office may be the longest the Conservatives have experienced, but the fact is that for seven years they raided the defence budget by more than 30 per cent. They cannot come to this place and lecture the Government about the amount of money that we intend to spend on defence.
We have conducted a strategic defence review, starting—as the previous Government should have done and were advised to do—with this country's foreign policy objectives and establishing, on the basis of consensus, the realistic capabilities that are necessary to meet all the eventualities that can be foreseen or might occur in the future. That is the sensible way to proceed, and there will be a sensible result. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that—because he is a fair man—when the review is published in the next few weeks.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on his replacement programme for aircraft carriers and the provision of amphibious lift. [45230]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We have considered the future requirement for aircraft carriers and amphibious lift capability in the strategic defence review. We expect to announce our conclusions in the near future.

Mr. Mackinlay: While I do not challenge the prudence of conducting the comprehensive spending review, may I respectfully remind my hon. Friend, and through him the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is made explicit in our Labour manifesto—our new Labour manifesto, which I signed and am proud to be associated with—that our strategic defence review would be foreign-policy-led? Essential to fulfilling our foreign policy objectives is the expeditionary capacity that is provided by carriers. If we are to have power projection to stay off horizon where necessary and help in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, we need that carrier capacity. That matter should not be in any doubt, and the Government should proclaim now that the replacements for the Invincible class carriers will be delivered and are essential to our defence needs.

Mr. Spellar: They will no doubt be called the HMS Mackinlay. My hon. Friend argues strongly in favour of future aircraft carriers. Those arguments are being weighed heavily and seriously as part of the strategic defence review, and we hope to make an announcement on the outcome in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Keith Simpson: As usual, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has put his finger exactly on the Government's problem: whether they will deliver real carriers. Those of us who watched "The Paper


War", the BBC2 documentary on the strategic defence review broadcast the other week, witnessed a meeting during which there was much badinage between Ministers about naming the carriers. The Minister for the Armed Forces suggested HMS Robertson and the Secretary of State favoured the HMS Gordon Brown.
Does the Minister agree with the permanent under-secretary that there is no need to put anything definite in the strategic defence review? Does he believe that he needs to say only that the Government are minded in principle to have a new generation of carriers and will not, in fact, order them? Will it be a paper strategic defence review?

Mr. Spellar: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. If he continues to ask questions such as that, he will be welcome to stay for a considerable time.
As I have said, the serious arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) are being weighed very heavily in the strategic defence review. The matter is being finally evaluated, and we shall make an announcement in the not-too-distant future. Those are the serious issues that are being debated—rather than, I regret to say, the superficial question to which we were just subjected.

Mr. John Hutton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Navy's three aircraft carriers, the first of which was built by my constituents, provide it with an important capability to support our forces, and those of our allies, when deployed in out-of-area operations? We are modernising our amphibious capability with the construction of HMS Ocean, again in my constituency, and two assault landing ships for the Royal Marines. Can my hon. Friend say more positively that, if we are to ensure that that new amphibious capability will be fully effective, we will need in due course to consider a replacement for the Invincible class carriers?

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for his considerable and effective lobbying over several years on behalf of the Royal Navy and the excellent qualities of the shipyard in his constituency. These serious issues are being weighed in the strategic defence review. We look forward to making an announcement on that in the not-too-distant future. I take into account the excellent work of the Vickers yard in my hon. Friend's constituency, and of its loyal and highly skilled work force.

RAF Northolt

10. Mr. John Wilkinson: What plans he has to change the status or role of RAF Northolt. [45231]

The Minister for the Armed Forces: The future of RAF Northolt is being reviewed in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This work is being undertaken against the background of the strategic defence review, the DETR's study of business aviation in the south-east and the policies relating to airports that will be set out in the forthcoming integrated transport White Paper. No decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would not any responsible Government wish to retain under their control the specialist air transport facilities provided by RAF Northolt that are crucial to Her Majesty's Government, the personnel of headquarters at High Wycombe, Northwood and Bentley Priory and diplomatic personnel in the United States and other embassies? Should not those facilities remain under Royal Air Force control? Would not any question of RAF Northolt being transferred to civil control and becoming a satellite of Heathrow not only be bitterly opposed, rightly, by the local population but militate against its primary role, which is specialist air transport for the military and Ministers?

Dr. Reid: Any responsible Government would wish, first, to pay tribute to the continuing role and contribution of RAF Northolt and, secondly, to assure themselves and the House that any proposals that even considered changing the status of RAF Northolt would be subject to thorough consultation. As a Minister in a responsible Government, I am glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on both those points.

Mr. Stephen Pound: May I assure my hon. Friend that 1 am as one with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on this matter, if, sadly, on few others? My constituents are as one with his in viewing with horror the possibility of increased civilian use of RAF Northolt. The only ray of sunshine that pierces the dark clouds hanging over Northolt is the prospect that, if the list of putative bidders is as printed in the popular papers, whoever takes over will start by sacking all the pilots and returning peace to the skies over Northolt.

Dr. Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) speak representatively for their constituents. That will be a major factor in any consideration. As my hon. Friend referred to press reports, I should make it clear that my Department has received several unsolicited representations about RAF Northolt. Contrary to reports in the press, Stagecoach Aviation has not approached my Department, although an unsolicited commercial proposal was made by Glasgow Prestwick International in February last year before it was taken over by Stagecoach.

Cyprus

Mr. Robert Key: When he will visit Cyprus to assess the work of the British garrison. [45232]

The Minister for the Armed Forces: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the Akrotiri sovereign base in March. I shall make a more extensive visit to the garrison in Cyprus, starting tomorrow.

Mr. Key: I know that the Minister will be warmly welcomed. I am grateful to him for facilitating my recent visit. Does he agree that the very few serious disciplinary offences committed by Her Majesty's forces in Cyprus should be put in proportion and that the discipline of British forces in Cyprus is second to none? When he visits Cyprus, will he examine particularly the recreational facilities available for single soldiers, especially as they


are now largely confined to barracks following incidents that have been mentioned? Does he agree that the tabloid image of British forces in Cyprus—that it is a posting to over-indulgence in sand, sea and sex—is a gross distortion and highly misleading?

Dr. Reid: I shall not comment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question; he has been to Cyprus more recently than I have. I would, however, make the serious point that British forces abroad, especially in Cyprus, are constantly in the media spotlight. That is more so in Cyprus because of the dreadful circumstances some time ago of the Jensen case. That terrible, tragic murder will continue to cast a shadow over the British forces in Cyprus for many years to come. I should therefore make it plain that we will not tolerate indiscipline. Some incidents over the past four years have been genuinely shocking, and the full weight of the law has been brought to bear on those responsible.
As the hon. Gentleman observed during his recent visit to the island, by far the majority of service personnel are well behaved. It is extremely regrettable that for the time being the many who day in, day out endure sacrifice in the service of their country are having to suffer for the irresponsible actions of the few. I should leave no one in any doubt that we will take robust action against anyone whose activities and ill discipline brings him and, unfortunately, his colleagues and country into disrespect.

Persian Gulf

Mr. David Borrow: How many British troops are currently deployed in the Persian Gulf. [45233]

The Secretary of State for Defence: Almost 1,000 service personnel from all three services are currently deployed on operations in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Borrow: During the time I have spent on the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I have had the opportunity to have regular talks with members of the armed forces. They all share with me considerable pride in the role played by our armed forces in ensuring that Saddam Hussein was held to the promises he made to the United Nations earlier this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not be lulled into a false sense of security, and that we must remain prepared to make forces available to ensure that the promises made by Saddam Hussein are upheld in future?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our level of preparedness and our willingness to act if Saddam Hussein continues to confront the will of the international community and the role of the United Nations is not in question. My hon. Friend rightly says that many of our troops are still in theatre; not only those in Ali Al Salem in Kuwait—they went down there because of the immediate confrontation—but those who serve in the Armilla patrol, which has continued for about 14 years, and the pilots at Al Kharj in Saudi Arabia and in Turkey who police the no-fly zones in northern and

southern Iraq. All those personnel are in place to ensure that the Iraqi regime lives up to its obligations and does not continue to threaten its neighbours and the international community as it has in the past.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the first troops to arrive in the most recent Gulf crisis were American airborne troops? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in considering future possible operations in the Gulf and elsewhere, he will maintain a full, rounded airborne capability, including the supporting elements and command and control facilities that are needed for rapid land-air deployment?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that, in the reshaping and modernising of our armed forces that will come from the strategic defence review, the capabilities we require to meet the sort of problems and conflicts we shall face in the future will be to his liking, and will make total common sense in relation to what the British people expect.

Maria Eagle: Are the service personnel who are currently serving in the Gulf offered the same cocktail of inoculations as those who served in the Gulf war? Is there any truth in newspaper stories that inoculation of service personnel may become compulsory? If so, will my right hon. Friend consider ensuring that, when ill effects are felt, personnel are compensated properly and immediately, without having to take the Government through the courts?

Mr. Robertson: No cocktail of drugs or inoculations was offered to any of our troops in the Gulf on this occasion. Anthrax vaccine was offered to our troops because that is a proven vaccination. To demonstrate my conviction that it was absolutely safe and had no visible side effects, I, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Chief of the Defence Staff, as well as the American Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the vaccination. We believe it to be safe. We have no plans at present to make it compulsory, although in any future climate of threat we would have to make an assessment about how best to protect our troops.
My hon. Friend asked a generalised question about compensation. We take our responsibilities for the safety and health of our troops with the utmost seriousness, but I cannot say that we shall offer compensation against things that we believe to be intrinsically so safe that we are willing to take them ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked

Modernisation Committee

Mr. David Winnick: What further proposals she intends to put to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [45253]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: In addition to proposed changes to the legislative process, EU scrutiny and the explanatory memorandum accompanying Bills, I hope shortly to submit a memorandum on the parliamentary calendar.

Mr. Winnick: With no criticism intended of anyone who happens to be a servant of the House, if the word modernisation is to have any meaning at all may I ask what justification there can be, two years into the next century, for wigs, gowns and swords to be worn in much the same way as happened centuries ago? Now that the Modernisation Committee is carrying out important work, is there not a case for that matter being considered and action being taken during the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mrs. Taylor: That topic was mentioned in a recent report, and the Modernisation Committee is always open to ideas, but, so far, we have not been inundated with suggestions from hon. Members that that sort of change should be made. However, I noticed that, in a recent debate, the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), said that he was taken with the idea of modernising in that respect, so we might return to that issue.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) did not mention wigs, and that we wish to dissociate ourselves from the philistine comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which would lead to the sort of drab uniformity that may be suitable for the hemicycle in many continental chambers, but is not appropriate here?
However, the question I intended to ask the right hon. Lady is, when she is considering the parliamentary year, will she bear in mind that she has the sympathetic support of the Opposition so long as there is proper safeguarding of Opposition time in the year?

Mrs. Taylor: If would be interesting to have a debate on parliamentary dress, including wigs; if there were time,I should certainly try to schedule one in the near future. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are genuinely interested in changes to the parliamentary calendar, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks about safeguards. Everyone will study any possible change carefully, but there may be some scope for improvement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If the Modernisation Committee and its members are serious about wanting to improve facilities for Back Benchers, instead of looking at nonsensical and superficial issues, they should seriously consider examining the work of the General Accounting Office in Washington to see how it provides detailed, accurate and factual support for Back Benchers who want to assess the implications of legislation. They should also consider expanding the support offered to Members of Parliament of all parties so that they can make uniformly useful contributions. The Committee should stop worrying about traditions that are important but hardly world-shaking.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will have noted that the Modernisation Committee has chosen to concentrate on the issues it thinks the most significant. That is one reason we have not spent a great deal of time talking about dress and wigs.
The Select Committee system and our Library facilities already offer Back Benchers significant support, but we need to keep up to date with what Members require—not least because the demands on them are increasing all the time.

Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Lady consider a fast-track procedure for the ratification of treaties that have been signed by Her Majesty's Government so that we can avoid the embarrassment of urging other countries quickly to ratify treaties that we seemingly cannot ratify ourselves?

Mrs. Taylor: Legislation can always proceed quickly if there is total agreement. During the time we have been in government, I have found there to be total agreement on very few issues.

Dounreay

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will set up a Select Committee to assess the future of Dounreay.[45254]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: No. This matter already falls within the responsibility of the Trade and Industry Committee.

Mr. Dalyell: That Committee's visit to Dounreay brought some sanity to a situation in which Dounreay has been the victim of sensationalist and technically ignorant journalism. Given the huge resources of skill on the north coast of Scotland, how can the Government do without the plant in tackling their own targets for carbon dioxide reductions?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that members of the Select Committee will note by hon. Friend's comments. Later this summer the Government will publish a wide-ranging and open consultation paper on policy options for meeting the Kyoto target and moving towards our domestic aim of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. A great number of people will wish to respond to and take part in that consultation process; I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to do so, too.

Recesses

Mr. Simon Burns: If she will make a statement about synchronising parliamentary recesses with school holidays and half-terms. [45255]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: I hope shortly to submit a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee which will deal with this subject, as part of what I have already described as the parliamentary calendar.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful for that reply. When she makes her submission, will the right hon. Lady remember


that the timetable of the House of Commons does not always dovetail perfectly with school terms? Given that 516 hon. Members have children, a large minority of them of school age, and given the intolerable burdens of our life style in this place, will she do all she can to dovetail our recesses with school holidays so that Members can see more of their children?

Mrs. Taylor: I am extremely sympathetic to that suggestion. I know that many Members with families feel that we could sometimes order our timetable better at no inconvenience to the House—but for the convenience of Members. There are, however, certain problems: not all school holidays in England coincide, and Scottish holidays are different again.
I hope to touch on this problem in the paper that I submit, although there are no easy solutions. No doubt the Modernisation Committee will try to come up with some recommendations.

Mr. John Maxton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish schools finish term at the end of this week and that many Members, if they have children at school or spouses who are teachers, will be highly inconvenienced? Will she take that into account when considering the parliamentary year?

Mrs. Taylor: Not only Scottish schools, but schools in towns such as Burnley will start their annual holidays soon. It will not ever be possible to satisfy all hon. Members on the matter, but it is possible to try to rationalise the situation and make improvements without jeopardising parliamentary business.

Morning Sittings

Mr. David Hanson: What progress she is making with regard to introducing additional morning sittings of the House. [45256]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: This matter also will be included among the issues in the Modernisation Committee's consideration of the parliamentary calendar.

Mr. Hanson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a compelling case for morning sittings, certainly on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which would enable better consideration of private Members' Bills, an early return to their constituencies for hon. Members such as me with northern constituencies and perhaps more opportunities for Ministers to take questions on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not want to pre-empt anything that might be in the report that goes to the Modernisation Committee. There are pros and cons of morning sittings and difficulties in terms of duplicating work in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The Modernisation Committee will want to consider all those matters. I hope that the memorandum that I shall publish will help hon. Members to concentrate their thoughts on practical solutions to those problems.

Factory Fire (Ballymoney)

Rev. Ian Paisley: (North Antrim) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether she will make a statement on the burning of the Lovell and Christmas factory in Ballymoney on Saturday 20 June, the effect that this disaster will have on local employment and the impact on the Northern Ireland pig industry.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office: (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Lovell and Christmas pig processing factory at Ballymoney was extensively damaged by fire on Saturday 20 June. I understand that the cause of the fire has not yet been established, but the House will want to know that there is no evidence of terrorist involvement. The fire is a serious event for the Malton Bacon company, which is part of the Unigate UK group which owns the factory, for the employees, and for the Northern Ireland pig industry in general.
Officials have been in contact with the company since the fire. The company has told us that, in conjunction with its insurers and advisers, it is assessing the problem in terms of its work force and operational requirements. Understandably, it wants to do that before making decisions about the future of the plant. It hopes to complete that process within the next few days, and to inform the work force of its plans as quickly as possible. In the meanwhile, the work force has been sent home on full pay, initially for the rest of the week.
Pig production and processing is an important sector of the Northern Ireland agrifood industry, which employs 2,500 people at processing plants and a further 1,300 people on farms. The Lovell and Christmas factory at Ballymoney had been slaughtering 13,000 pigs a week, which is roughly 40 per cent. of the average weekly pig slaughterings in Northern Ireland. Of that number, approximately two thirds were sourced from Northern Ireland producers. At this early stage, it is not possible to say with certainty what impact this event will have on local employment and the local pig industry, but it is clear that there is a significant potential problem in the short term as to how to deal with the pigs that are on farm and will be ready for slaughter over the next days and weeks.
I understand that representatives of the industry are currently addressing how that difficulty might be overcome, taking account of the slaughtering capacity available at the other three major pig processing plants in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the industry is co-operating in that way.
I emphasise to the House that the Government fully recognise the potentially serious implications of the fire. Staff from the Department of Agriculture were at the site even before the fire was extinguished. Officials from the Department of Agriculture and the Industrial Development Board have been in contact with company representatives at the highest level to assist in overcoming the difficulties arising from the fire.
I am aware that the pig sector has been experiencing the same difficult trading conditions as other parts of the industry, in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the country. The fire represents an additional problem. The Lovell and Christmas factory is important to the pig industry in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the significant work

which the company had put into developing the scale of operation at the site, and the investment in the plant structure and facilities before the fire.
The company has undertaken to inform officials immediately it has developed its thinking on the future of the plant. The Department of Agriculture and the IDB will continue to work closely with the company and the industry to offer whatever assistance they can in dealing with the problem.
I pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland Fire Service, which dealt with the outbreak with the skill and courage that it has shown in Northern Ireland on so many occasions over the years.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for that very full statement, which will prove to the people of Northern Ireland that his Government are taking the matter very seriously. I am sure that he will agree that such an accident, in an important factory that has just launched into more than –10 million of expenditure, is a terrible tragedy. He will understand the feelings of the workers as they stood outside the plant on Saturday, watching their future go up in flames. I am sure that he will want to assure them that the Government will do everything in their power—although I accept that that power is limited in this matter—to encourage the plant owners to rebuild and get the factory operating again on the site.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is now a huge gap in the indigenous pig processing industry. Some 40 per cent. of all pigs slaughtered in Northern Ireland are slaughtered at that factory. Something must be done urgently if we are not to lose our indigenous pig processing industry.
I associate myself with the Minister's remarks about the firefighters, who did an excellent job against terrible odds. I am sure that the House will want to convey our wishes for a speedy recovery to the one person who was injured and the two people who suffered severe shock.
Will the hon. Gentleman assure the management of the company that their work is appreciated? We hope that they can pay all their suppliers this week, so that the farmers will not run out of cash.

Mr. Murphy: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks, in so far as I can do so. The House is aware that between 300 and 400 people are employed at the plant, which is the biggest employer in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a major tragedy for his area, and also for the rest of Northern Ireland, especially the agricultural sector.
As I said in my statement, officials in both Departments are prepared to do all they can to help, and will consider whatever sort of help may be needed. Of course, it depends on what the company has in mind for the future of the plant. My noble Friend Lord Dubs has been in touch with officials on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman and other Northern Ireland Members want meetings with him or with my other ministerial colleagues, they will be most welcome.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: (Bracknell): Will the Minister be good enough to convey the Opposition's concern and good wishes to all who work at Lovell and Christmas—and, for that matter, the people of Ballymoney, who must be extremely worried following that dreadful fire?
We are grateful, as the people of Ballymoney will be, for the positive answer that the hon. Gentleman has given to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). We are pleased to note that the Minister and his officials will do everything possible to ensure that a new plant is built, and that it does not go elsewhere in the United Kingdom or Europe. Can he give us an assurance that that will be the case—or, at the very least, that he will continue to use his best endeavours to ensure that it is the case?

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As more than 40 per cent. of pig processing in Northern Ireland was carried out at that plant, it is vital that the plant remains in Northern Ireland. That is uppermost in everybody's mind. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, which I will pass on to the plant's management.

Mr. Jim Murphy: (Eastwood): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

Official Report

Madam Speaker: I have some information that I need to give to the House. On 18 June, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised a point of order concerning exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister on 6 May. His concern was that the text of the Official Report did not accurately reflect what the Prime Minister had said. Later in the day, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members referred in debate to the same issue.
I wish to remind the House that the Official Report is intended to be a full report of proceedings in the House. A full report is defined in "Erskine May" as one
which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument".
The Editor of the Official Report is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the report. He would not entertain any attempt by any hon. Member, however eminent, to alter the substance of what was said. He has confirmed to me that on 6 May neither the Prime Minister nor anyone acting for him or on his behalf made any such attempt. The changes that were made to the Prime Minister's words on 6 May were made by the Editor in fulfilment of his responsibilities. He is of the opinion that the changes in no way altered the sense of what the Prime Minister said. I shall publish the Editor's letter in the Official Report.
It is a well-established rule of the House that the Official Report is the authoritative record of what is said, and that tapes cannot be used for the purposes of casting doubt on the validity of the Official Report. Nevertheless, I have thought it right, in view of the sensitivity of this issue, to listen to the tape and to compare it with the Official Report in order to satisfy myself about the accuracy of the record. I must tell the House that it is clear to me that the Official Report is an entirely accurate account of the substance of the Prime Minister's remarks, and that nothing that added to the meaning was omitted.
Hon. Members may be aware that on Friday my office issued a short factual statement to the press together with the Editor's letter. I thought it right to do so, since my concern is at all times and in every situation for the integrity of this House, its procedures and its status. It would have been wrong for these to be left in doubt a moment longer than was absolutely necessary. That is my ruling.

Following is the text of the Editor's letter:
Dear Madam Speaker,
Mr Peter Robinson raised a point of order with you this afternoon in respect of our report of the Prime Minister's reply to Mr Hague on 6 May last at column 711 about the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland.
I can confirm that certain words were deleted. That deletion was carried out by us. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone acting for him or on his behalf either requested that deletion or had any hand in making it.
The Prime Minister's exact words were:
`What is essential is that any agreement must be signed up to in full, as we said, and the answer to his question is yes of course it is the case that, both in respect of taking seats in the government of


Northern Ireland and in respect of the early release of prisoners, the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good.'
Fully in accordance with the requirement that the House places upon Hansard, and in compliance with Hansard's terms of reference as set out in Erskine May, that sentence of 73 words was edited. That was done in order to make it read better, a task that the House has traditionally entrusted to the Hansard reporters. The change in no way altered the sense of what the Prime Minister said and in my judgment cannot be criticised on that ground.
In raising his point of order with you, Mr Robinson repeated the words but not in the way that the Prime Minister uttered them, and that is a crucial difference. If, as Mr Robinson implied, we had left out the sentence 'The answer to his question is yes.', he would indeed have a point of substance. However, those words did not constitute a complete and self-contained sentence; they were a part of a much larger sentence, and they must be read in that fuller context, not removed from it.
I know that I do not need to remind you that Hansard is a full report, not a verbatim report. It has a discretion to amend the words as spoken, acting within the authority of its terms of reference, which state that
'though not strictly verbatim, [it] is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.'
I suggest that the change that was made was completely in conformity with that description.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Church,
Editor.

Points of Order

Mr. Nicholas Soames: (Mid-Sussex): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have previously taken a robust line on the answering of written questions. May I draw to your attention an answer that I received on Friday—four days after I tabled it? I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the aims and objectives of his policy on tourism and what the achievements of those policies had been since 1 May. He had four days to answer that question, and the reply I received was that he would reply to me as soon as possible. It seems to me a little odd that, when plenty of notice was given, a Department of a Government with such an enormous majority in the House of Commons was unable to answer in four days a written question on the aims and objectives of the Government's policy on tourism. Could you, Madam Speaker, have a word with the Leader of the House and ask her to instruct Ministers that, when possible, answers must be given on the due date?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an indication of his point of order. I have dealt with such matters on a number of occasions—I think that the last time was on 11 June. My advice to Ministers on answering written questions is exactly the same as the advice I give on answering supplementary questions to oral questions. As the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, the satisfaction of the questioner cannot always be guaranteed by the answer. Sometimes hon. Members are not happy and are quite disappointed with the answers they receive. That has always been the case. The hon. Gentleman is concerned that it took four days to answer his question. Many points of order are raised by hon. Members who complain that it takes a long time to answer questions. I do not know whether four days is a long time, or four weeks. I cannot guarantee that all hon. Members will be satisfied by the answers to their questions, but there are several senior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and they will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to push you any further, but I am used to being terribly dissatisfied with the answers that I receive, and it is not that of which I complain. I am complaining that I did not get an answer. Four days after I had tabled the question, I received no answer as to the aims and objectives of a Government Department. That seems grossly casual and disrespectful to Parliament.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: (Bolsover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to put the record straight, I remember dealing with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) when he was an Agriculture Minister and the lives of four farmers were placed in jeopardy because of the Coalite matter. I made representations to the hon. Gentleman, his senior Minister and all the rest of the gang. It took me six months or more even to get a meeting. When I brought a busload of people from Bolsover, the hon. Gentleman complained because there were too many.

Madam Speaker: I think that that answers the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).

Mr. Jim Murphy: (Eastwood): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on an investigation by Grampian police fraud squad into allegations of abuse and fraud against a Moray councillor who also happens to be a candidate for the Scottish Parliament. Have you received a request from any member of the Scottish National party to come to the House to clarify these important accusations, so that we set the record straight once and for all?

Madam Speaker: No, I have not received such a request from any hon. Member.

Rev. Ian Paisley: (North Antrim): Further to your statement earlier, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but he did write to tell you that he would be unable to be here.
The only matter that perturbs me is that the Editor of Hansard now has the right to say that nothing is going to be left out from or added to what is said in the verbatim report. I wonder whether an affirmation such as "yes" is not something that should be in the report. I appreciate the fact that you issued the letter. It is a good thing that we have that letter, and I know that my hon. Friend agrees with me. However, it will perturb some hon. Members if the sole authority rests with the Editor of Hansard to say whether he has edited a speech in such a way that it is as strong as it was at the beginning.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have gone as far as I can in giving my ruling, which was very clear. I also took into account precedents before I gave the information to the House, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the matter of the New Economic Agenda for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

CRIME AND DISORDER BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),

That the Report [2nd June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr.Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [18 June]:

That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on Consideration are to be taken shall be, New Clause 10, New Clause 11, New Clause 1, remaining New Clauses, Amendments to Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments to Schedules;
(2) the days allotted under the Order [16th June] to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clause 10, New Clause 11
Three and a half hours after commencement



New Clause 1 (including any Amendments to it selected by the Speaker)
Six and a half hours after commencement


Second day
Remaining new Clauses, Amendments to Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments to Schedules, Third Reading
Six and a half hours after commencement

Report to lie upon the Table.

Madam Speaker: Before we come to the main business of the House, hon. Members might like to know that there is a guidance note as to when Divisions will fall and amendments will be called. It is in the No Lobby. Hon. Members who are interested will find it all in there.

Orders of the Day — Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New clause 10

FOOTBALL BEHAVIOUR ORDER

—(1) If it appears to a chief officer of police that the following condition is fulfilled with respect to any person in his police area, namely that the person has acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to prevent him disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom or during the period before or after any designated football match outside the United Kingdom, he may apply for a football behaviour order in respect of that person.

(2) Such an application shall be made by complaint to any magistrates' court.

(3) If, on such an application, it is proved that the condition mentioned in subsection (1) is fulfilled, the magistrates' court may make an order which prevents the defendant from doing anything described in the order.

(4) The prohibitions that may be imposed by a football behaviour order are those necessary for the purpose of maintaining good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom or during the period before or after any designated football match outside the United Kingdom.

(5) A football behaviour order shall have effect for a period (not less than five years) specified in the order or until further order.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the applicant or defendant may apply by complaint to the court which made a football behaviour order for it to be varied or discharged by a further order.

(7) Except with the consent of both parties, no football behaviour order shall be discharged before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date of the service of the order.

(8) The acts referred to in subsection (1) above include acts committed outside the United Kingdom.

(9) The period referred to in subsections (1) and (4) above means a period of two weeks.

(10) The football matches referred to in subsections (1) and (4) above are football matches designated under the Football Spectators Act 1989.

(11) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by a football behaviour order, he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.'.—[Sir Norman Fowler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Norman Fowler: (Sutton Coldfie]d): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 11—Amendment of Football Spectators Act—

`.—(1) The Football Spectators Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) of section 15, there shall be substituted the following subsections —

"(1) A court by or before which a person is convicted of a relevant offence or, if a person convicted of such an offence is committed to it to be dealt with, the Crown

Court on dealing with him for the offence shall make a restriction order in relation to him unless there are exceptional circumstances in relation to the offence which justify its not doing so.

(IA) Where a court does not make a restriction order under subsection (1) above it shall state in open court what the exceptional circumstances are."

(3) Subsection (2) of section 15 shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 16, there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(4A) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably believes to have failed or to be about to fail to comply with the duty to report imposed by a conviction order."

(5) In subsection (5) of section 16, substitute "six months" for "one month" and "level 5" for "level 3".'.

Government new clause 12—Football spectators: failure to comply with reporting duty.

Government amendment No. 166.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not spend a great deal of time painting in the background and stating the reasons why we have tabled new clause 10. Last week, the vast majority of this country felt shame at the behaviour in Marseilles of so-called English supporters—who comprised only a small number of the English people in Marseilles, and in no way represented genuine English football supporters, any more than they represented the people of this country itself.
Nevertheless, we saw for ourselves the damage that was done and the violence that was committed. It is not something that was got up by the press. The evidence was there, and, throughout last week, it was seen on television newscasts by millions of people in the United Kingdom. Not surprisingly, there was a genuine sense of outrage and anger in this country at what those thugs had done, not least to this country's reputation.
It is easy enough to condemn the events in Marseilles, but the more difficult matter is to make proposals aimed at ensuring that such events do not happen again. The Opposition have sought to meet that task. I should say straight away that it is very unlikely that any system of defence that we erect will be able to exclude every football hooligan and thug going abroad to international matches. However, equally beyond doubt is the fact that the current position and regulations are not working effectively enough.
As far as I am concerned—I am not wedded to a particular form of drafting in our proposals—we will co-operate to the fullest with the Government to achieve a better and workable solution. I am committed to improving the current position.
The violence at Marseilles graphically illustrated some of the defects in our defences against hooligans and thugs. It was clear, for example, that, although some of those going to Marseilles may not have had convictions for football-related offences, they had been convicted of other offences of violence that might well have brought them under police suspicion. It was equally clear that people's convictions for football-related offences involving violence, drink or damage to property have not been accompanied by restriction orders to prevent convicted offenders from going to overseas matches.
Last week, in Hansard, in answer to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Home Office revealed figures


showing that, in the past five years, there had been 20,000 convictions for football-related offences, whereas only 71 people are currently subject to restriction orders under the Football Spectators Act 1989.
The obvious question to ask is, how will we deal with the problems? I shall start by explaining our proposals to make restriction orders more effective, as stated in our new clause 11. However, I should say first that I very much welcome the action taken by the Government in tabling new clause 12, which effectively accepts several of the main points that we have made. I reiterate that our objective is to achieve a permanent improvement in the situation. We are much more likely to accomplish that objective if the Government have an open mind on the type of proposals being made by the Opposition.
I think that we can now take it that some of the arguments used in 1989, in the debate on Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill—that football hooliganism was simply a product of the previous Government—have now been proved spectacularly inaccurate as a diagnosis, and that the issue of violence confronts any Government, of whatever political complexion.
In our first proposal, new clause 11, we seek to increase the deterrent value of restriction orders. It seemed to us that such deterrence would not be achieved if a maximum sentence of one month was available in dealing with someone who ignored a restriction order. We suggested that six months should be substituted, and I am glad that the Government have accepted that in new clause 12.
We went beyond that point, however. A few months ago, just after Christmas 1997, the Home Secretary announced that he had reminded the courts of the power to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences. Unhappily, perhaps, the Home Office chose to headline his press statement of that date "Britain takes the lead against football hooligans". On reflection, the Home Secretary might feel that perhaps that was not the happiest way of describing his plans. Nor was it a case of everyone being wise after the event.
On the same day as the Home Secretary announced his plans, Detective Inspector Peter Chapman, who heads the National Criminal Intelligence Service's hooliganism unit at Scotland Yard, pointed to one obvious defect. He said that, under the legislation, police could not arrest a convicted hooligan until he had failed to report to a police station at an appointed time, usually during a match. He said:
The nonsense of it is that I can see that individual pass through Heathrow four, five or six hours earlier knowing full well that he is going to that particular football match and can't do anything about it. I don't have the power to stop him.
Therefore, in subsection (4) of the new clause, we have sought to make it possible for a constable to arrest a person
whom he reasonably believes to have failed or to be about to fail to comply with the duty to report imposed by a conviction order.
The Government have also accepted that principle in new clause 12, and I welcome that.
The question that remains is whether those two additions are enough to deal with the threat we face. It seems self-evident that the answer must be no. Currently there are only 71 restriction orders in existence. There are still the best part of 20,000 people convicted of football offences in the past five years who are not subject

to restriction orders. If we are to make the restriction order system more effective—I suggest that that is precisely what our aim should be—we have to tackle that issue, too.
The new clause proposes to make it obligatory on the courts to grant such a restriction order unless there are exceptional circumstances against doing so. I am quite prepared to listen to arguments that, for example, make it obligatory upon the court to consider making a restriction order or any other practical way forward. However, the evidence suggests strongly that the present system is not working effectively.
Of course it is true that many of those who took part in the riots in Marseilles had not been convicted of football-related offences. I do not deny that, and I shall return to the point in respect of our other new clause. However, it seems essential that, as well as any additional measures we take, we should ensure that the present system of restriction orders works better and more effectively than it does at present. Our proposal is designed to ensure that, when a court convicts a person of a football-related offence, it is under a greater obligation to consider the case for making a restriction order. That is the principle that we are seeking to enforce.
I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to move towards us on the issue. It seems a pity that, having accepted so much of new clause 11, he did not take that further step.
I now turn to new clause 10—the football behaviour order. It seeks to widen the powers of the police in applying to a court for a restriction order. It owes something to other measures that are already in the Crime and Disorder Bill, such as the anti-social behaviour order.
I do not entirely understand the point that the Prime Minister made on the subject during Prime Minister's Question Time last Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that we were in some way opposed to the anti-social behaviour orders. That is not the case. No reasonable person could come to that conclusion. We could not have done more to allow the Bill through. We did not vote against it on Second Reading, in contrast to the attitude of the then Labour Opposition in 1989 to the Football Spectators Bill, when they voted for a reasoned amendment and voted against Second Reading.
4 pm
In Committee, we sought to establish whether the Government's proposed anti-social behaviour orders would work. That is not unreasonable. Several legal academics had claimed that the orders were contrary to the European convention on human rights. We have to consider whether they would be effective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in Committee:
One of the main purposes of the amendments is to ascertain whether the provision is workable, and whether it helps deal with the problems in practice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 April 1998; c. 20.]
That is unquestionably the function of any Opposition. I am amazed that the Prime Minister should seek to challenge it.
I am not wedded to the exact wording of the new clause. I am committed to the principle of strengthening our position and the action that we can take against football hooligans moving abroad. Again, that is not a new point.


The day after the Home Secretary's announcement at Christmas time, Mr. Richard Ford, following an excellent tradition as home affairs correspondent of The Times, reported that the police were demanding that the Government should make it compulsory for anyone convicted of football-related violence to be barred from travelling abroad as a supporter. He wrote that the police were expressing serious doubts over the Home Secretary's plan, and said that a key part of the legislation was flawed. According to the report, the police called for an order barring travel abroad to support England to be made a mandatory part of any sentence imposed on an offender convicted of football-related violence.
That takes us back to new clause 11. An alternative approach would be to allow the police to go to court when they had reasonable cause to believe that an order was necessary to prevent an individual disturbing good order at a football match outside the United Kingdom. Who would be covered by that? The first group is those almost 20,000 who have been convicted of football-related offences but have had no restriction orders placed on them. The police may believe that, if such people travelled overseas to a game, there would be a serious risk that they would cause disturbance and damage. The new clause would allow the police to go to court to put that case. The decision would rest with the court, but the police would be allowed to make the case.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: (South Cambridgeshire): Does my right hon. Friend agree that smaller in number, but with an even greater reason to be included in the football behaviour orders, are those against whom exclusion orders have been made in the United Kingdom? There is a powerful case for them to be covered. There are several times more such people than are presently covered by restriction orders.

Sir Norman Fowler: Indeed. I shall come to that. The factors to be taken into account should be in the Bill, rather than allowing total discretion. I have no difficulty with that proposition. As my hon. Friend says, many groups might be included.

Mr. John Bercow: (Buckingham): I recognise that subsections (5) and (7) of new clause 10 refer to the order applying for not less than five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are circumstances in which it might be appropriate at the outset, on the strength of an appalling track record of behaviour, to impose an order lasting longer than that—potentially for life?

Sir Norman Fowler: The only trouble with this debate is that one is attacked both ways. Sometimes I am attacked for being too severe, and—although "attacked" is the wrong way to put it—my hon. Friend suggests that I am being too lenient. In the spirit of our approach to the matter, we would listen to any argument. One can foresee circumstances in which five years might be lenient, but it is not an unreasonable figure, and relates to the restriction orders and the 20,000 people could potentially be covered by them but are not covered at the moment.
The order would allow the police to go to court and say that an individual, although he had not been convicted of a football-related offence, had been convicted of some other

offence, perhaps a crime of violence, and was therefore likely to pose a danger if he went to an overseas match. The decision would be taken by the court, but the police would be empowered to show that the individual's past criminal conviction would lead a reasonable man to the conclusion that there was a substantial risk that his presence at a football match would lead to violence or to other disturbance.
The new clause would enable the police to go to court even if the individual concerned had not been convicted up to then of a serious offence. Those who think that that is one step too far should look at the detail of the anti-social behaviour orders. The powers being given by the orders do not require a conviction for a previous offence to be established. Indeed, it would be extremely difficult to see how that could be the case if an order were to be effective.
In dealing with football hooligans, the police may not want to reveal the intelligence that they have gathered on an individual who, although he is without a conviction, nevertheless presents a serious and real threat. The police may be reluctant to put that intelligence information to the court, and would prefer to deal with the matter by means of sensible co-operation between one police force and another.
If that is the case, I am entirely content that reasonable cause should be linked to past offences, but that those past offences should include not only football-related offences but others. In other words, the measure would not be entirely exclusive to football-related offences. It would then be up to the court to decide how relevant the offences were to the decision.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: (Bolsover): The thing that worries me about the debate—this applies to the Government as well as to the Opposition—is that, once we start talking about anti-social behaviour, giving the police extreme powers and not merely football-related hooligan offences but football-related offences, I wonder where it will stop.
Would the measure have anything to do with people like Cantona? What about people like Tony Adams, who has been charged with serious offences and is now performing well on the field for England? Would it have anything to do with somebody like Stan Collymore? I am trying to suggest—not only to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, but to my right hon. and hon. Friends—that, if we give the police those tremendous powers, we will finish up with half a football team.

Sir Norman Fowler: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes in his customary manner. However, we are not dealing with the members of football teams in the amendment—that is, unless they are going out on to the streets of Marseilles to riot and cause damage, which seems an unlikely event, and so far one which has not been suggested. I should point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that his wider concerns go to the heart of the Bill.
The anti-social behaviour orders, among others, give the police greater powers, but our proposals are more limited. They would deal specifically with football hooliganism, which was so offensively illustrated last


week, as everyone saw, and to which the proposals are not an unreasonable response. They would not give the police unchecked—

Mr. Skinner: It sounds like they would.

Sir Norman Fowler: They would not—the police would have to ask the court to make an order, and the court would have to make its decision on the basis of the application.

Mr. Joe Ashton: (Bassetlaw): One of the problems is that exclusion orders and restriction orders have loopholes. If the right hon. Gentleman says at the Dispatch Box what those loopholes are, all the villains will learn about them. Indeed, many of them already know about the loopholes; they travel by different routes, or four people drive an old van with another person stuck in the back, for example. It is easy, in a mass exodus, for people to get around court orders.

Sir Norman Fowler: As I said at the outset—I know the hon. Gentleman was here—I do not think that either we or the Government would claim that there was any guarantee that a football hooligan or thug could be excluded from a match; that would be impossible under any law. However, I believe that the current situation could be improved. The effectiveness of our system—again, I do not think that there is anything between us and the Government on this—is brought into question by the fact that, in the past five years, 20,000 people have been convicted of football-related offences, but only 71 restriction orders have been made.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the seriousness not only of the threat that I believe such people pose, but of the Opposition's approach to that threat. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for taking up two of our proposals, but we hope that he will use the principles that are set out in the other proposals as the foundation for other measures. I do not believe that we can rely only on the two measures that he has accepted; we need to do more if we are to have a realistic prospect of dealing with these people, and that must include giving more powers not only to the police but to the courts, which would have to take decisions.
Parenthetically, I raise another issue, about which I wrote to the Home Secretary over the weekend. Last week, the Prime Minister suggested that, on returning to this country, convicted football hooligans should be disciplined by their employers and perhaps sacked. I do not want to dispute the deterrent value of that as an immediate measure, although the last thing we want is for those people to be kept at the taxpayers' expense on social security. However, in the range of action that is open to us, certainly over the next few weeks, the suggestion could provide a reasonable deterrent.
In the medium term, we need to examine how we can progress beyond that. My basic belief is that people who have been found guilty of causing damage overseas—in this case,France—should be required to make reparation to help to pay for the damage that they have caused. As I understand it, the French have a criminal claims compensation scheme. I see no reason why convicted offenders who have caused damage overseas should not pay into that scheme, which would require some system

of attachment of earnings for convicted offenders on their return to work in this country. That would best be done by an agreement between the United Kingdom and France. We are talking about an important principle—offenders should be required to pay for the damage that they have caused.
I would welcome the guidance of the Home Secretary on that issue, but above all I would welcome his response to the issues that we have set out with the aim of strengthening our defences against the actions of hooligans overseas, who have done a great deal in the past week to damage the reputation of English soccer.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department: (Mr. Jack Straw): First, I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for the manner in which he spoke to his new clauses on an important and current issue. I also thank him for tabling them, even though they will use up valuable Opposition time.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and place on the record, as I did last Monday, the abhorrence of all decent people in this country, who were angry as well as shocked to see the disgraceful scenes involving a relatively small number of English so-called supporters in Marseilles.
The world cup tournament France '98 is plainly enormously important for this country and, in particular, for those who reside in two of its nations—Scotland and England—or who support those teams. It is a great sporting festival and we want it to be remembered as such. As a Government, our aim has always been to promote it as an enjoyable and safe tournament for law-abiding supporters from England and Scotland. Regrettably, that has meant that we have had to spend a huge amount of time and effort on the small minority of hooligans who want to cause trouble and disrupt things.
Before dealing with the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I must remind the House of what we have been doing to lay plans to combat hooliganism in France and ensure, as far as possible, that the games are as peaceful and enjoyable as they can be. As soon as we took office last May, we entered into immediate discussions, which continued through the summer, about preparations for the world cup. Last October, the Prime Minister asked me to co-ordinate those efforts and to establish a world cup co-ordinating group.
Within that group, all parties—Government, police and footballing associations—have worked together on all matters affecting supporters going to France and, obviously, those attending games. In doing so, we have had three main aims. The first was to ensure that the world cup is first and foremost a sporting festival. The second was to promote the interests of respectable football supporters and prevent a hooligan minority from bringing disgrace to our country, as, sadly, they did last weekend. The third was to work closely with our French counterparts to achieve those aims.
In March, we published a detailed action plan, which we sent to all hon. Members and which received wide approval. It set out the measures that we have taken to achieve those objectives. That action plan had two distinct and simple purposes. The first was to provide the decent supporter with the confidence of knowing that the British and French authorities are properly looking after their


interests and welfare. We need to remember that thousands of supporters are going to the games to support our teams, and it is partly their vigorous, but peaceful, support in the stadium that makes a significant difference to the morale, and therefore, we hope, the success, of the English and Scottish teams.
In saying that, I pay my tribute to Sir Michael Jay, the British ambassador in France, and all his staff, whom I know from my many visits to the embassy in Paris. They have worked tirelessly, in some cases full time on this matter, with the consular authorities in Marseilles, Boulogne and elsewhere in France to ensure that good arrangements were in hand to look after the interests of the decent supporter and traveller in France.
The second purpose of the action plan was to provide clear and unambiguous warnings to the hooligan that his behaviour would not be tolerated. I had many discussions, beginning at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union in May 1997, with my two opposite numbers, M. Jean-Pierre Chevenement, the French Minister of the Interior, and Elizabeth Guigou, the Minister of Justice—although most of the responsibility is M. Chevènement's.
We discussed ways in which we could greatly improve co-operation between ourselves and the French. I am pleased that the French authorities indicated early that they would apply the law firmly to those who chose to break it. From the first, we gave full support to that approach, and we welcomed the statement, which has been proved by events, that prosecutions would follow for those who broke the law, and that, in many cases, imprisonment would be the immediate punishment for those found guilty before French courts.
Our co-operation with the French Government, police and other authorities has been excellent. The Football Association and the Scottish Football Association paid preliminary visits with their security advisers to the places where their teams would play and stay. Equally important, senior police officers from England and Scotland visited the various match venues well in advance to see the layout of towns and grounds. They have also shared our expertise on policing and crowd safety, and have established close and successful working contacts with their French colleagues.
At the end of February, in, I am proud to say, Blackburn, at Ewood park, one of the founding homes of world football—Blackburn Rovers was one of the 12 founding teams of the English Football League, without which there would be no world cup—I hosted the European Union's seminar on the policing of football. It was a successful and well-attended event at which representatives of football associations and police authorities across the EU shared experience and advice, and developed good contacts with French counterparts, including Dominique Spinosi, who heads the French organising committee, and George Querry, a senior official from the French Ministry of the Interior who is dealing with the world cup.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: (Mid-Sussex): I congratulate the Home Secretary on the extensive co-operation that took place beforehand, and I associate myself with his remarks about Sir Michael Jay and his colleagues in Paris.

However, will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the hooligans who were convicted following the unspeakable events and behaviour of a very small minority in Marseilles were already known to the police, and had been identified to the French police as known troublemakers?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but we made an early decision not to give that kind of information, for reasons that will, I think, be readily understood. I can say, however, that it was obvious to the police that a large number of those involved during the initial stages of the trouble in Marseilles were not previously known to, for example, the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
We agreed with the French that British football intelligence police officers— spotters—would work in France during the tournament. I must make it clear that it is for the French to police the world cup, and not for us. We must respect the facts that France has different traditions of policing, and that the French police are autonomous in their own country. The French agreed that spotters could act as a vital source of information on which they could act, and those intelligence officers have been operating successfully. Discussion about their precise role and their numbers continues.
It is important that there should be flexibility, and we intend to ensure that the French authorities receive all the targeted help that they request, and we can provide. I emphasise that one sovereign country may make a request of another, if it wishes to have police officers on its soil acting in any kind of operational, or even advisory, capacity. The House will accept that it would be inappropriate for me to go into further details, particularly of the number of our police officers who are present.
The French are organising their police operation nationally through a co-ordination centre in Paris. British police, including some from the NCIS, are present at that centre. I express my thanks for the enormous amount of willing assistance that we have had from the authorities in France over important policing questions. Both we and the French officials were worried about whether arrangements for collaboration would stand the test of the front line when trouble broke out. I am pleased to say that that has been the case so far.

Mr. Lansley: I understand why the Home Secretary does not wish to provide detailed information of the kind requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). However, given the reliance placed on the NCIS in this country, the notification provided to French authorities of those who might be suspected of being involved in football hooliganism and the lack of evidence regarding those who were actually involved in much of the hooliganism that occurred in Marseilles, what conclusions can the Home Secretary draw from the events in Marseilles?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I did not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall give way to him again if he is not satisfied with my answer. It is true that some of those involved in the trouble in Marseilles were not known to the NCIS. I am afraid that it is in the nature of the human condition that not all people who are about to commit crimes are known to the police—would that that were the case; it would make my job and that of the police very much easier.


The NCIS, which was established by the previous Government, placed on a statutory framework under the Police Act 1997 and brought into force under this Government, is envied across the world because of the great skill and professionalism that it brings to bear on criminal intelligence. Almost uniquely—although I was told in my grammar lessons that something is either unique or it is not—the NCIS combines all law enforcement agencies, such as the police, Customs and Excise, and many other agencies that operate in this country, in a single resource for the pursuit of criminal activity in whatever form.
I shall give an example of the extent of the co-operation between Britain and France. I signed and brought into force on 1 June the bilateral agreement with France so that convictions for football-related offences in France could trigger restriction orders in the British courts. If I had not been able to do that, and if I had not received that co-operation from our French counterparts, much of our discussion about how we could effectively ensure sanction in British courts against those who committed deeply appalling offences in France would have been nugatory.

Mr. Ashton: Is not one of the problems the fact that the Data Protection Act 1984 prevents the criminal intelligence unit connected with football from revealing names, addresses and pictures of thugs to clubs, ferry companies and airlines? That is a major restriction. The Act must obviously protect people's privacy, and certain information should not be made public. However, people connected with football who want to prevent violence should have access to that data, which until now has been forbidden to them.

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's frustration with the data protection legislation and the way in which it is sometimes interpreted. We must strike a balance between the rights of individuals to have information about them subject to privacy protection, and the public interest involved in revealing that information—particularly for the detection and prevention of crimes. That issue has arisen in the Bill, where we require authorities to establish partnerships that can be achieved effectively only if they share information. Some police forces have been very reluctant to do that, and I am pleased to say that amendments have been made to the Bill to facilitate that transfer of information.
While the data protection provisions have not blocked the supply of information or the checking by the NCIS of ticket applications within the England members club, they have had other effects that we shall have to consider when the world cup is over.
There is also a wider issue. For example, older juvenile offenders16 or 17-year-olds—may seek the protection of anonymity under the Data Protection Act, when we all know that, if their names and pictures were made available to the press and the public, it would act as a considerable deterrent to their commission of further offences. I am pleased to say that we have taken significant steps to persuade the youth courts to be much more open in the publication of the names of older juvenile offenders. 1 want the press to be vigorous in checking whether the courts are following our advice.
4.30 pm
We have taken other steps to help bona fide supporters from Great Britain. Our advice to supporters was summed up in the phrase, "No ticket, don't travel." Television advertisements supported that message. I know that it was criticised in some quarters, but, in my judgment, it was the only sensible message that the Government could have given to football fans, and it remains our message.
The proof lies in the fact that, across this country and Scotland, hundreds of thousands of football fans were able to gather, often in clubs or public houses, to enjoy the communal atmosphere of watching a game without the problems that could have arisen had they gone ticketless to France. There is an alcohol ban on Eurostar trains during the tournament. Although we do not have powers to enforce such a ban, I hope that other carriers, such as ferries and airlines, will restrict the availability of alcohol in appropriate circumstances.
I turn to the new clauses. We share the objectives of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, especially in the light of recent events, which we all deplore. Last Monday, I spoke to Mr. Chevenement to apologise on behalf of the British Government and people for the events in Marseilles. We are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that such disgraceful scenes are not repeated in future soccer tournaments. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say—
1 commend him for saying it—that, even with the best plans that we can think of, there is no way to guarantee that trouble will not take place. We never suggested that that was possible. However, as far as possible, we can guarantee that those causing trouble will be apprehended and dealt with as severely as possible.
The right hon. Member proposed that the penalty for breaking a restriction order should be increased to six months' imprisonment. We agree, and our new clause 12 brings that into proper order. I hope that that is acceptable to him. He also proposed a power of arrest when someone subject to a restriction order is in breach of it. That, too, we accept. For the benefit especially of Conservative Members, I should say that the difference between the Opposition proposal and ours involves simply getting it into proper order and hooking the offence into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That not only provides powers to arrest where a scheduled offence has been committed but ensures that an arrest can be made when it appears on reasonable evidence to a police officer that such an offence is about to be committed.
If a restriction order was imposed whereby a person had to report at 3 pm to a court in, for example, in Sutton Coldfield—I pick that example at random—but at 2.30 pm that person was at Heathrow airport waiting to board an aeroplane, then, despite the efforts of the right hon. Member during his time at the Department of Transport to improve transport between Heathrow and Sutton Coldfield, the police would have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence was about to be committed, and would be able to make an arrest.
I understand—I shall deal with the point later—the gravamen of the right hon. Member's proposals for football behaviour orders and for making it almost automatic that a restriction order should be imposed whenever there has been a relevant offence. I should like


to explain why I do not believe that we can put those proposals into law at this stage. In no sense do I express disapproval for the principle behind the orders.
The Opposition's football behaviour order would allow the police to apply to the courts when they had reasonable cause to believe that a particular individual would cause disturbances at a football match outside the country. The court would be able to make an order placing prohibitions on the person concerned.
As the right hon. Gentleman made clear this afternoon and on the "Today" programme this morning, these proposals closely follow the Government's proposals for anti-social behaviour orders. It is important that the matter should be debated in an all-party way. However, in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman gently teased the then Opposition for having voted against the Football Spectators Act 1989, I shall gently return the compliment, if such it is, for the position that the Conservative Opposition previously took on anti-social behaviour orders.
I realise that Conservative central office is sometimes off message these days, but it must be said that the Conservative research department, in a brief that it published earlier in the year about the Bill, described the anti-social behaviour order as a policy gimmick that had been dreamed up by us in opposition. It was not a policy gimmick but a serious proposal. Someone should have a word with Conservative central office about that. It may have been taking its cue from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. When we made our proposals in opposition, he described anti-social behaviour orders as unnecessary.
As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has raised these matters, it must also be placed on the record that, in The Sunday Telegraph of 12 April 1998, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) not only referred to the European convention on human rights but was quoted as saying—perhaps he did not say this; it was The Sunday Telegraph—
that the Government's proposals were "dangerously unworkable". There is always time for sinners to repent, and I am glad that the forensic and persuasive powers of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), have persuaded the Opposition of the value of anti-social behaviour orders.
An issue was raised about the extent to which the orders, which are not criminal convictions, could fit properly with the rights of individuals under the European convention on human rights. That was the serious point that the hon. Member for Hertsmere was raising when he kicked anti-social behaviour orders to one side and said that they were "dangerously unworkable". We are clear that the orders are not in breach of the European convention on human rights, but it has to be put on the record, as I think it was in Committee, that they had to be drafted carefully to ensure that they were not.
Otherwise, there was a danger that the orders, which are civil orders that prohibit people from doing things that, in any event, are unlawful, and retrospectively make that prohibition, could appear to be in the nature of a conviction and a punishment for a past offence. It is

palpable that a court can base its decision to grant such an order only on evidence that typically will refer to past behaviour as an indication of future misbehaviour.
We believe that anti-social behaviour orders have struck the right balance, but it has taken a long time to work the issues through. I first proposed such orders—they had a different title then; they were called community safety orders, but that was the principal difference —about three and a half years ago, when we were in opposition. We published two detailed technical consultation documents. Even so, and given the benefit of much helpful profession advice, it was not possible to translate those proposals, on which we had been working for at least a year and a half, into legislation when we came into government. A great deal more work had to be done on the orders before we got them into what we think is a form that will work and is consistent with the European convention on human rights.
The Bill is close to the end of its passage through the House, and it is extremely important that we achieve Royal Assent before the end of July, so that many of the important proposals can be brought into force as swiftly as possible. I do not need to go through all of them, but one issue that is causing great anxiety to hon. Members on both sides of the House is that of serious sex offenders who were the subject of conviction before the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force and who, currently, can leave prison without any restriction being imposed on them.
Thanks to assiduous work by the police and probation service, working closely together and led by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, arrangements have been put in place to deal with some of those serious sex offenders; however, those are temporary arrangements. It is extremely important that we get the sex offenders order on the statute book as quickly as possible, so that we can use those orders and ensure that those people are the subject of proper supervision and that the public are properly protected.
If we were to try to insert in the Bill at this stage a large new order, with the complications that the Opposition themselves accept relate to anti-social behaviour orders, there is a grave danger that, at best, the Bill's passage would be delayed until the spillover part of the Session in late October, and that therefore we would lose at least three months before the Bill could be enacted. Moreover, restriction orders would deal with offences such as those that are being committed in France, whereas the proposed orders would not deal directly with that problem.
Under the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, a police officer would need to have a reasonable belief that an order of the sort proposed was appropriate and would go to court to seek the order. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that, in some cases, the police would not wish to apply for an order: because of the nature of the intelligence that they had received, they would not think it appropriate to bring that intelligence before the court. Other than convictions, in almost every case involving football hooligans—[Interruption]
I can see that those on the Opposition Front Bench are concerned about the light shining in their eyes, which makes thinking difficult. After 18 years of experience on that side of the House, I can tell them that a word to the


Clerk, followed by a word to a Doorkeeper, will always secure the raising of the blinds. This short interruption will also give me a chance to drink a glass of water. Many a time when I was bathed in sunlight on the Opposition Front Bench, 1 could see that those on the Treasury Bench were enjoying my discomfort; however, we are a compassionate Government.
The new clause states that the chief officer of police has to have
reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to prevent
a person
disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom".
In short, he must believe not only that an order is appropriate or reasonable, but that it is necessary. I recognise the difficulties of drafting in opposition, but that wording is such that, in almost every case, the evidence that would be required to be put before the court would be intelligence evidence.
There are two problems with that. One is that in few cases is intelligence evidence good evidence for cause, because it is in the nature of hearsay evidence. The rules relating to evidence in civil courts are wider than those in criminal courts, but even courts where the civil rules of evidence and the civil burden of proof apply have to ensure that the evidence proves the point; otherwise, any decision they made would be overturned on appeal. The second problem is that, even if intelligence evidence were ruled admissible in the court, which in itself would be difficult to achieve, it is questionable whether it would be in the public interest for the courts routinely to be told about the nature of the evidence that was being introduced.
For example, evidence to be found on the National Criminal Intelligence Service database typically includes evidence from informants. In this country, we rely heavily on informants: it may be an unpleasant aspect of police work to pay criminals or to pay people to act as agents in order to gain good intelligence about other criminals, but it is necessary. It is my judgment, and it has been the judgment of successive Governments, that, although clear rules have to be laid down regarding the proper conduct of informant operations, the public interest would not be served if the nature of informant handling was routinely brought to public notice, as it would have to be under the new clause.
The result would be that police officers would judge that it would not be in the public interest to seek the orders under the new clause, given the other difficulties relating to the chief police officer's having to prove that an order was necessary to prevent the person concerned from
disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom".

Sir Norman Fowler: Would not that argument disappear if we were to limit the clause to past offences? It seems to me that one of the problems with which we have to deal is the fact that 20,000 people have been convicted of football-related offences, yet only 71 restriction orders have been issued. Under the new clause, it would be open to the police to put it to the magistrates court that an individual had been so convicted, which would provide the necessary ground for seeking a further restriction order.

Mr. Straw: I shall deal later with restriction orders. I am not telling the right hon. Gentleman that we believe that what is contained in new clause 10 is simply to be dismissed —I do not believe that for a moment. It is an important idea, and one which we should sit down and work on.
However, as the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister for many years, often said, in answer to a point from the Opposition, that the Government have a duty to ensure that law passed by the House is good law. The proposition was only made last Thursday, and it will not be possible to put it into proper order within the time available to get the Bill passed, especially given the time it took to get anti-social behaviour orders into shape.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that, as soon as we got sight of his proposals, I sat down with officials and went through them to find those that we could accept, which we got parliamentary counsel to ensure were put into good order, and those that required more work. If I had thought that we could accept the lot, that would have given me the greatest pleasure of all.

Mr. Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend ask the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) about the 20,000 convictions to which he referred? Is not the right hon. Gentleman thinking of 20,000 arrests? It seems a large number and probably goes back about 20 years. I would suggest that some of those convictions are for pickpocketing, peddling drugs, or drunkenness inside a football ground—offences which are not really connected with the problem being debated. Many statistics get lumped together and, of the 20,000 convicted, probably only 500 were convicted of serious hooliganism.

Mr. Straw: I have to tell my hon. Friend that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was referring to an answer given to one of his hon. Friends by one of my Ministers last week about the number of football-related offences recorded in the past five years. Football-related offences cover the sorts of offence to which my hon. Friend refers, as well as offences of violence and specific hooliganism of the sort exhibited in the south of France.
It may be appropriate to deal directly with restriction orders. We accept that there are defects in the Football Spectators Act 1989. The right hon. Gentleman teased me about the fact that we voted against Second Reading of that Bill, so it might be sensible for me to put on the record our reasons for doing so.
We did so to save the Conservative Government from the grave error of going down the road of football identity cards. At that stage, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was not spending sufficient time with his family and was still a member of the Cabinet. As he is a man of great wisdom, I have no doubt that he told Mrs. Thatcher that an identity card scheme was likely to make matters worse, not better. I know that many other people said the same to her. Besides me, she is the only other honorary vice-president of Blackburn Rovers; but her knowledge of soccer and attendance on the terraces are not exactly as extensive as mine. In short, she did not understand how the system would operate. That is why we voted against Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill.
In the end, the previous Government saw the wisdom of what we were saying, and did not bring into force the relevant part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the


Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), speaking for the Opposition—it was a Department of the Environment Bill—said:
We can at least agree the principle of part II of the Bill and the intention to restrict people convicted of a football-related offence from travelling to matches abroad."—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol.155, c. 860.]
More recently, in 1995, we said that the restriction orders should be used more often by the courts.

Sir Norman Fowler: Returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), the fact is that 20,000 football-related offences have been committed in the past five years. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all their perpetrators could have been subject to restriction orders?

Mr. Straw: I cannot confirm that. The definition of a relevant offence in the Football Spectators Act is different from, and narrower than, the definition that the police use for recording purposes. If I am wrong, I shall try to provide more information later in the debate.
As we know, restriction orders prevent those subject to them from attending matches abroad involving teams from England and Wales. The offenders concerned have to report to police stations in this country when such matches take place. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that restriction orders had almost fallen into disuse when we took office. That is true: last year, there were only nine extant orders. I decided to issue a circular, which went out on 27 December last year, to the courts, the CPS, the Magistrates Association and the police, reminding them all of this power. As a result, the number of orders in force has risen from nine to 71.
Detective Inspector Chapman of the NCIS wanted us to take other measures as well, some of them impossible, but the publicity surrounding the circular, and its implementation, have meant that the courts are now seized of the need to impose the orders—they are responding to the advice extremely well.
I want to pick up the right hon. Gentleman's point about whether the courts should automatically impose orders. Operational instructions have been provided to prosecutors; the Lord Chancellor's Department has reminded courts of their powers under the 1989 Act. Operational guidance to the CPS asks prosecutors to make applications for bail conditions for the prevention of further offences, and, when appropriate, for the surrender of passports. It also asks prosecutors to make applications for restriction orders when appropriate. Instructions advise prosecutors, when the circumstances surrounding a football-related offence are not made clear on the case file—sometimes they are not—to approach the police for further details.
I do not want to speak for much longer, especially as I have just been handed a note to that effect by my Minister of State, but I should like to deal with the point about automaticity. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will be aware of the apprehension felt in the courts whenever an automatic penalty is imposed. The facility was used sparingly by the previous Government, and when, with our support, such propositions were presented, they resulted from the most detailed scrutiny. The relevant part of the new clause is unacceptable to us, as it goes too wide.
I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that I stand ready to institute further discussions with the Lord Chancellor and the CPS to ensure that the courts are advised, whenever a football-related offence is before them, to consider imposing a restriction order. We shall also advise them to give reasons when they do not do so. Given the public's concerns—magistrates are also members of the public—about what has happened in France, I believe that the courts will readily accede to such advice.
In the light of what I have said about football behaviour orders and the extension of automaticity, I hope that the Opposition will not press the new clause to a vote.

Mr. Lansley: Does the Home Secretary agree that it was because there was no immediate prospect of England travelling abroad to football matches that restriction orders were not sought for a long period—they were not required in relation to any particular events? Has he considered the scope for applying restriction orders retrospectively to given offences?

Mr. Straw: There is a general prohibition on creating retrospective criminal offences. That is a principle of our law and of the European convention. I am advised, however, that the changes that I hope the House will agree later today—in respect of stronger punishments for breaches of restriction orders—will apply to all new orders, including those made in respect of offences already committed in France. Thus, those who have committed such offences in France will be caught, because the orders will not be made until the Bill—with luck—becomes an Act. To that extent, retrospective effect will be given to convictions already obtained—and to those that I hope will continue to be obtained in France for hooligan offences committed during the world cup.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Home Secretary saying that he does not oppose the principle of our football behaviour order, and that he would be prepared to listen to further arguments, perhaps put at a meeting, about how such an order could be given practical effect?

Mr. Straw: The answer is yes. For the avoidance of dubiety, however, I should add that I do not believe that it will be possible to conclude those discussions before the end of the Report stage. It is important not to make the best the enemy of the good; we must get the Bill into law as quickly as possible, not least to ensure that anyone breaking a restriction order suffers the maximum penalty of six months, not one month; and to give the police the power of arrest. I nevertheless undertake to instigate discussions on the issue as quickly as possible.
I have spoken at some length because these are important issues. I wanted to explain to the Opposition why we have accepted two parts of their new clauses, and why we have been unable to accept the wording of two other parts. It is clear from the debate, however, that the whole House is united in its opposition to what happened in Marseilles, and in its determination to act ever more severely on football hooliganism, in this country and abroad.

Mr. Edward Leigh: (Gainsborough): Anti-social behaviour orders, on which the new clauses are based, were debated at length in Committee. Last weekend, the


Prime Minister seemed to suggest that the Opposition were less committed than the Government to stamping out hooligan behaviour. He was undoubtedly basing those remarks on information that had been given to him by the Minister of State, Home Office, who, in turn, was misquoting what my hon. Friends and I said in Committee. It must be placed firmly on the record, so that the Home Secretary appreciates the matter, that the Opposition were not opposed to the anti-social behaviour orders in Committee, and we are not being cynical because we have tabled new clauses containing orders that are based on the anti-social behaviour orders for debate on the Floor of the House.
5 pm
I shall remind the Home Secretary of some of the questions that we asked in Committee. We wanted to ensure that there was rigour about the anti-social behaviour orders, that they were not sweepingly defined, and that it was clear who the victim was. We were not opposed to the anti-social behaviour orders, but we argued in detail that existing legislation, especially the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which mentions
threatening, insulting or & abusive behaviour",
already covered the sort of behaviour about which the Government have complained. We were trying to probe precisely what new form of behaviour would be covered by the orders, as is our duty.

The Minister of State, Home Office: (Mr. Alun Michael): I remind the hon. Gentleman that we spent a long time discussing the fact that prevention rather than punishment was the aim of the anti-social behaviour orders. He does not seem to have grasped that point yet.

Mr. Leigh: We did spend a long time discussing that point. As the Minister made clear, if an anti-social behaviour order is imposed, punishment in terms of criminal conviction does not follow, but, as he well knows, other punishment follows, and a number of restrictions can be placed on the defendant by the courts if the defendant does not comply with the order. We made those points in Committee, and we were perfectly entitled to do so.
We also made it clear that, at heart, the Bill was a Conservative Bill, and that many of the matters that we were debating were originally mooted by the Conservative Government. We were trying to tease out from the Minister precisely what sort of behaviour would be covered. On many occasions, he was either unwilling or incapable of telling us in detail what sort of behaviour the orders were designed to catch. Indeed, he used a famous phrase, saying that we would recognise such behaviour as the elephant on the doorstep. I said to him:
The elephant on your doorstep is not the language of Lord Denning."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998; c. 67.]
The Minister, however, seemed happy to say to the Committee, "Don't worry; we can't define what sort of behaviour will be covered, but the magistrates will deal with the matter adequately when it comes back to them." We said, "No. What sort of behaviour will be covered by an anti-social behaviour order—playing a CD too loud, irritating the neighbours or causing distress, although there might not be a particular victim?"
The Opposition have tabled in the new clause an anti-social behaviour order that provides, for the first time, a clear definition of such behaviour. It also includes a definition of a victim that I believe would not fall foul of the European convention on human rights. We have clearly defined a problem. The whole House is aware that there are major difficulties with football hooliganism—that is international news—and the Conservative Opposition have provided a closely defined form of anti-social behaviour. Apparently the Government will reject our new clause, but I can think of no good reason why they should do so.
The Home Secretary said that the Bill would somehow be delayed if he did further work on the new clause. I do not believe that that is true. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to come back in a week or two with their own form of anti-social behaviour order which dealt precisely with football hooliganism. Why are the Government opposing the new clause? Perhaps they are doing so out of a sense of pique, because the Conservative Opposition have correctly identified football hooliganism as the issue of the hour and provided a definition of a form of anti-social behaviour that the public want to be addressed. We have also identified the fact that the Bill does not address such behaviour.
Why are the Government opposing the new clause? They could have said, as the Home Secretary was careful not to, that it was incorrectly drafted. He could have passed it to the parliamentary draftsmen, and I would have understood it if he had said, "The essence of the new clause is correct, but it is defectively drafted. Let us redraft it, and we shall see whether we can put it in the Bill." He has not said that, but has come back with loose and ill-defined opposition to our new clause.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the new clause: after all, it could be used on the basis of clear evidence. In the Committee debate on anti-social behaviour on council estates, we said that it is often difficult to prove a particular form of behaviour. There may be malicious prosecutions and disputes, and, as in cowboy movies, no clear sense of good and bad. There are many grey areas such as domestic disputes between and within families, but we have provided a clear and close definition of such behaviour and an order could be based on a conviction.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has said, there have in recent years been 20,000 convictions as a result of behaviour on or about the football terraces. As anti-social behaviour orders are being introduced, what could be easier than introducing a clearly defined form of anti-social behaviour specifically in respect of hooliganism at football matches? What clearer message could be sent out to the general public? I believe that the new clause is sound, and I urge hon. Members to support it.

Mr. Eric Martlew: (Carlisle): I am concerned that football hooliganism is the issue of the moment. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, it has been picked out by the Conservatives. Often, Parliament does not do justice to legislation because it has been rushed through. Hon. Members who were in the House when we rushed through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 will know that that was particularly bad legislation.
I am also worried when there is consensus between Front Benchers. There is consensus today, but I remind hon. Members that there was consensus when the Child


Support Agency legislation—the Child Support Act 1995—was passed; and we know what we got with that. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, and there is a need to tighten the law.
Regrettably, one of my constituents has a record of violence at or in the vicinity of football matches going back 10 years. I shall not mention his name, because he would only glory in being mentioned in Parliament. That gentleman was involved in Dublin in 1995, when the match between Ireland and England had to be abandoned—he was arrested, given a suspended sentence and deported. In October 1997, he attacked an Italian pensioner on a train while travelling to Rome for the world cup qualifying match.
My constituent is a known hooligan. He went on record as saying that he was going to France to cause trouble, so I decided to write to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, making three points. First, I asked whether this hooligan could be prevented from going to France, because he had said that he was intent on violence. My right hon. Friend replied that, regrettably, that could not be done because my constituent did not have a restriction order on him, and that he would be allowed to travel to France.
I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, which I received today, but I did not need it, because Cumbria police had said that they could not stop my constituent, and in Saturday's edition of The Mirror, it was reported that my constituent was in France, had bought a ticket on the black market, and was staying at a good hotel. Obviously, he was able to get through the net—there was nothing we could do to stop him. I understand—although this has not been confirmed—that he has now returned to England. The man boasts about the trouble he causes. He has caused trouble in both Ireland and Italy, but it seems that we cannot do anything about it.
Secondly, the man has now said that he intends to produce a book to coincide with the world cup. He will make up to £800,000 out of recording his violent behaviour. I asked my right hon. Friend whether there was any way in which to stop publication of the book, or to take away the man's profit and give it to the victims of his crime. The answer was that such action would be very unlikely. Again, that cannot be right. It should not be possible for criminals, which is what they are, who have been through the courts—and the man concerned has been in prison on a number of occasions—to capitalise on their criminal record. The publishers are interested only in profits, and the companies selling the books say that they do not want to behave like censors. It cannot be right for these criminals to profit.
Thirdly, there was a suggestion that the man would sell his story to a newspaper and that it would be serialised. I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether that could be stopped. The answer was that, regrettably, it could not be stopped because it is perfectly legal. It was suggested that the Press Complaints Commission might be able to do something, but the Government could not stop it.
Hon. Members will understand why people in my constituency who know the man want the law to be changed. The law needs to be changed. It should not be possible for one or two thugs to make a fool of the law—

and, to be honest, a fool of Parliament. The vast majority of football supporters from Carlisle and the rest of the country have gone to the world cup to have a good time. They are of good character and law-abiding. One or two supporters are spoiling things, and we must take action to stop them.
We cannot assume that we have taken the necessary action. I suspect that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, believed that we had passed the necessary legislation. Perhaps even my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought so. Previous Home Secretaries have said, "We are doing this, that and the other," but when it has been tested, the law has been found wanting.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will push ahead with his proposals today, but return to the House at a later date with further proposals to prevent criminals from writing books about their exploits. In a law-abiding society that wants to go forward, it is not acceptable that such people should be able to drag us down.

Mr. Bob Russell: (Colchester): There has been broad support for the Government's proposals, and I wish to continue that consensus. We are united in deploring the incidents that have occurred and we pray that there will not be any more. The problem is that many of those involved thrive on the oxygen of publicity, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said. It could be argued that this debate provides more publicity. Although I accept that the incidents occurred, I question the way in which they were portrayed by the media—it was exactly what the thugs wanted. I hope that both the media and the thugs have now had enough.
The Liberal Democrat party supports the spirit and the sentiments that have been expressed from both Front Benches. However, I hope that the Home Secretary can clarify certain issues that may cause concern. Will he confirm that incidents that happen overseas will not be subject to further trial in this country? I am referring to the imposition of a restriction in this country, rather than the offence being dealt with a second time.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that restriction orders will be served only on those who have been found guilty of an offence, and not in the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Carlisle where there had not been a conviction? I acknowledge the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but if there has not been a conviction, I question whether a restriction order would be valid. I hope that the Home Secretary will clarify the matter.
5.15 pm
I was disturbed to hear that there are some 4,000 convictions a year for football-related offences. Although the incidents at the world cup over the last two weeks have focused attention on the English disease—I was about to say the British disease, but in fairness, it is an English football disease—I would welcome further clarification of how we are to deal with the continuing problem of football hooliganism within the English game—the home season.
Does the Home Secretary believe that the clubs are doing all that is necessary? I include in that question those who wear their clubs' colours on the pitch, and their activities when they are not on the pitch. We are looking for leadership from our professional footballers. Hon. Members are aware that one or two of them have


not set the best examples. It is possible that one or two of the hooligans thought that they were settling a score. If there are 4,000 convictions a year, should there not be an increase in the use of restriction orders? I do not refer only to the big clubs; there are also problems with the smaller clubs. I am also worried about how the proposals will be policed. It will be another burden on our hard-pressed police forces.
Although I acknowledge that the House and the public want action to be taken, I want to dissociate myself from the Prime Minister's suggestion that those who are convicted of an offence overseas should be sacked from their jobs in this country. The consequence of doing that will be the public purse having to support those people. I am not defending football hooligans, but I think that the Prime Minister has overstepped the mark.

Mr. Martlew: The man in the case that I cited was sacked from his job after the Italian attack. It is a punishment. Surely employers have the right to dismiss people who discredit their companies.

Mr. Russell: That is a matter for the employers and the tribunals. A virtual instruction from the Prime Minister is not helpful. If the hooligan is in an occupation where good order is paramount, sacking might be justified, but it is not necessarily relevant—

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: (Hastings and Rye): What occupation would be appropriate for such action?

Mr. Russell: I will not be drawn into that question. It is not the role of Government to instruct employers on how they should dispense with the services of those whom they employ. I stand by that statement. I had not thought that the state was interfering with employers to quite that extent.
I join the two Front-Bench spokesmen in congratulating the police in this country and in France, and the British officials overseas on what they have done to try to improve the situation. I trust that the minority—and it is the minority—will not prevail, and that thousands of law-abiding English and Scottish supporters will be able to enjoy the remainder of the world cup without the thugs dragging English soccer further into the mire.

Mr. David Crausby: (Bolton, North-East): I unreservedly condemn the hooliganism in Marseilles. The so-called English patriots who marauded through France brought nothing but shame on the nation and on the football team. It is ridiculous to refer to them as brave, aggressive young men: they are nothing of the kind. Even to speak of them in the same breath as the genuinely brave men who died in past wars is disgraceful. The individuals who marauded through France are the cowards of the crowd and they should not be considered brave in any circumstances. All hon. Members should surely agree with that. Their behaviour is ruining the world cup and our prospects in that tournament. They are not representative of the decent fans who want to enjoy a celebration of the game.
It is pretty clear that the present system is unable to deal with the problem. The solution is not new law, but a tighter use of restriction orders by the courts. I accept that 71 cases is too few, but there has been an improvement this year. At the beginning of the year there were only

nine, so at least some progress has been made. I am convinced that the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and the police can make greater use of restriction orders.
The real solution to hooliganism does not lie with the law: it lies with a change in the culture of the game. It comes down to what the game is about, including the people who participate in it. A great deal of work has already been done. Anyone who takes a tour of football grounds will realise that enormous steps have been taken towards finding a solution to the problem of hooliganism. Remarkable improvements have been made to facilities.
Football must heal itself. A change in culture must be backed by football clubs and, most important, by players, who make a lot of money out of the game. For the future of the game and for the future of our young people, they have a responsibility to show, both on and off the field, that good behaviour is the only way forward for this great game of ours.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: (Surrey Heath): I share the views of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). It is interesting that he and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) were united in their view that the current law is not adequate to deal with this problem. The hon. Member for Carlisle supported the point, argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), that we need to go further than the Government have proposed. The Government should accept the entirety of new clause 10. It is clear that there is unanimity in the House about the importance of this issue, and that the Opposition's new clauses go further than the Government have been prepared to go.
Hon. Members are united in their concern for the French police officer who was attacked during further mob violence. He is married and has two children. I am sure that we all send our best wishes to his family. My heart sank as the news of the attack was broadcast, but then it became clear that German, not English, fans were involved. I applaud the German football authorities for offering to withdraw their team from further participation in the tournament. That offer has been declined, but it shows that football authorities rightly recognise that the appalling spectacle of violence has affected the tournament, as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said. It has been a national disgrace for all the countries whose supporters have been involved in violence.
All hon. Members condemn hooliganism, but we also have a duty to say how we can best deal with the problem. I was surprised that the French authorities took decisions only after the first violence occurred in Marseilles. Bars are to close at 11 pm, and the giant screens which the fans wanted, are to be removed as a punishment and will be restore only if there is no further violence and hooliganism. Surely it would have been common sense to close all the bars somewhat earlier than 11 pm. It is clear from our sadly extensive experience of football violence over many years that much of it is drink-related.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: (Gedling): Does not shutting bars treat the symptoms rather than the cause? We should be driving out the hooligans. Fans from other nations drink and use bars until goodness knows what time in the morning, but they do not get involved in fighting, and


there is no stain on their nation. Hooliganism must be dealt with without spoiling the enjoyment of the rest of us, who behave responsibly.

Mr. Hawkins: I agree that it is sad that the enjoyment of law-abiding people is spoilt because bars have to close, but we are not talking about them. I think that the hon. Gentleman is realistic enough to accept that drink has always played a part in such offences. Although I entirely agree that we must find a way to deal with hooliganism—we are debating ways of extending the law to deal with the hooligan problem—it is extraordinary that, given the extent of the shared police intelligence during the build-up to the world cup, more thought was not given to the significance of drink in the behaviour of hooligans.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that drink was not an element of the German offence, of which he gave a clear description. Perhaps his argument that drink always plays a role in hooligan offences should be corrected.

Mr. Hawkins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the film footage of the scenes of violence in Marseilles involving England supporters clearly showed that drink had played a part in those incidents. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is nodding.

Mr. Soames: I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has said. I have read with increasing disbelief the histories of some of the people involved in this thuggery. What the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) said applies to the ringleaders. Drink is not a part of their methods: they are calm, controlled and determined. They wickedly and ruthlessly take advantage of those who are already drunk. Of course drink is a problem, but the leaders are wicked, evil people who are not drunk, and who behave in this way for a purpose.

Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there can be trouble not only at football matches, but at other sporting events when no ringleaders are involved. Not long ago, I was at a race meeting with my two young sons when a drink-related fight broke out. No ringleaders, sober and bent on violence, were involved; several young men who had had far too much to drink simply became violent. Much of what we are talking about is undoubtedly drink-related.
All hon. Members who have spoken so far agree about the need to use restriction orders more. We would all encourage the courts to make greater use of the powers they already have, but much of the planning for the world cup, worthwhile though it was, did not go far enough. Before it started, disquiet was expressed about the limited number of tickets available to England fans, but the Government's instruction to fans not to travel without a ticket was, sadly, always doomed to failure.
I do not criticise the Home Secretary for what he said. I am sure that any responsible Minister would have made the same kind of statement, but we all recognised at the time that many supporters were bound to travel to France without tickets, hoping to get them on the black market.

We recognised that many supporters would end up rootless and shiftless in the streets around the towns where the English team was due to play, and that there would be trouble when drink was involved.
I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said about the need to consider the issue further. The Home Secretary is being very realistic in saying that he is prepared to examine the problem beyond the confines of this debate, but I ask him to take seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. We did not deal with this subject in Committee, but we did consider general anti-social behaviour. As my hon. Friend said, in Committee we were concerned to make the Bill work and we believe that our new clauses would be effective.

Ms Sally Keeble: In Committee, we discussed at some length the proposition that separate orders should be introduced only to cover distinct and recognisable behaviour, and that they should not be applied too generously. Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly the distinct type of behaviour that the football behaviour order would cover, and how that behaviour would be distinct enough to justify a separate order?

Mr. Hawkins: I hear what the hon. Lady says but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, we want the Bill to be effective in practice.
The Home Secretary talked about the seminar at Ewood Park which, as I think he is aware, was also attended by a superintendent from my area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). He was previously a Metropolitan police officer in charge of policing at Stamford Bridge, but more recently he has been the senior officer in charge at Woking during Woking's successful cup run, so he has experience of being in charge of policing at a major premier league club, and of the problems associated with premier league matches as well as smaller clubs. Problems can arise when smaller clubs are visited by larger clubs and the ground does not always have the capacity to cope with all the supporters. It was a successful seminar and I have had good reports of it. I am sure that the Government will continue to encourage the police to cross-fertilise experience and opinion—internationally as well.
I am delighted that the Football Association has employed a former senior police officer, whom we all heard speak at length in the media in the aftermath of the violence. It is good that such expertise is available, but we know that despite all the good intentions and the hard work the trouble has continued. I believe that new clause 10 would be a better way to deal with it.

Mr. Lansley: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that considerable progress in controlling violence has been made at domestic football matches in recent years? Does he agree that the world cup is a relatively accessible tournament to which people spend considerable time travelling, and that it is those circumstances that give rise to the particular need for new clause 10?

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It has become clear that many of the people involved in the violence at international tournaments—


this perhaps relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—have well-paid jobs. They can afford to travel internationally. There is undoubtedly a need for the courts to consider seriously how to exert their powers in order, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, to hit where it hurts most. It is important to examine how the courts can use restriction orders and how the powers can be extended.
I hope that the Government will reflect further on this matter. I also hope that, in due course, something very much like new clause 10 will appear in a subsequent Bill—if the Home Secretary cannot take the proposal on board now. It is certainly important to look very hard at what is suggested in new clause 10.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: As a dedicated and long-term supporter of Hastings Town football club, I have no personal experience of crowd troubles, as the team's best crowd of the season was 375. However, with promotion to the Ryman league, we are hoping for better things.
Sitting by our televisions and experiencing the humiliation the nation suffered because of the behaviour of our so-called supporters means that we are all involved, but it would be a great pity if the agreement that exists across the House that something needs to be done were fractured by petty, party political points—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for example, impugned the Government's good intentions because they do not wish to accept new clause 10.
The most important thing is to introduce provisions that work. On the face of, there are problems with new clause 10. It has been suggested that it fits in with clause 1 —and the heading "Crime and disorder: general"—which deals with anti-social behaviour orders. With respect, it does not.
There is a need for provisions to be precise. Clause 1 is very precise in that it states that an application for an anti-social behaviour order may be made if a person
has acted … in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself".
There may be judicial interpretation of precisely what that means, but it is sufficiently clear to help the judiciary in their consideration.
New clause 10 is much less precise. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already alluded to the test of necessity. It is a very high test and it could well be too high in this instance. The new clause states that a football behaviour order may be applied for if
the person has acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe
that such an order is necessary, but there is no assistance in interpreting what "such a way" is. Phrases such as "in such a way" are so vague and unintelligible that it is difficult, certainly for the layman and, in turn, for the judiciary, to understand what they mean.
Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I would support a new clause that achieved the Opposition's objective, but new clause 10 is not the one.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: I should like first to apologise to the Home Secretary and to other hon. Members for missing the first few minutes of the debate.

I was unavoidably detained. However, it has been a very good debate. It is also quite clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about the issue—about which there is a great deal of unanimity. It is absolutely not a party political issue.
In the past couple of weeks, one of the saddest things for us all has been to switch on the television and to see pictures not of great football matches but of the violence surrounding those matches. Our reputation abroad has been partly destroyed. Many good, ordinary people watching those disgraceful scenes on the television will ask themselves, "How on earth did some of those hooligans and thugs get there? How were they allowed to go there in the first place? What kind of system do we have when they can travel willy-nilly? Why weren't their passports taken away? Can't something be done about it in future?" The only answer is that we must never let it happen again.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of football fans in this country are good, law-abiding people. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned Woking football club, which is in my own constituency. It has a wonderful side, which has a great family following and always maintains an outstanding atmosphere. There are many such teams across the country.
So far as I can determine, there are two types of hooligan. One type is the more sinister, tending to go to matches to create violence without taking any drink. They are very nasty, wicked people. There are plenty of those around, who will try, whenever they can, to get to a match to cause violence for its own sake. Some of them are politically driven by one extreme or another of the spectrum. They are very serious and very nasty people.
The second type of hooligan is perhaps less serious and nasty, although it is not at all pleasant. It is composed of those who are normally law-abiding but behave out of character when full of drink.
Both types of hooligan require attention, and new clause 10 is an important step in that direction.

Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Marseilles, there was some evidence—not least from the deportation orders made by the French authorities—that the number of those in the first category of hooligans that he mentioned, who are known as category C hooligans, was relatively small? The difficulty is that there was a relatively large number of those whom he might have included in his second category. Part of the difficulty, which new clause 10 deals with, is how to prevent relatively large numbers of such persons arriving in such circumstances at an England game.

Mr. Matins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of those who are in the first category of hooligans is relatively small, and the number of those in the second category is the highest.
I should like to talk to the Home Secretary about the difficulties that he mentioned about new clause 10, and offer my suggestions on how those difficulties might be overcome. I believe that, early in his speech, the Home Secretary—he will forgive me for having entered the Chamber after he started his speech—said that one of the problems with provisions such as new clause 10 is the hearsay nature of the evidence that might be brought


before a court and the fact that often informants are used and are very relevant in such proceedings. He was essentially saying that there would be evidential problems, which I can appreciate.
In the spirit of all-party co-operation, however, would the Home Secretary consider whether an application for a football behaviour order should be brought not only in a magistrates court but in a Crown court, before a judge? I make that suggestion specifically because the Home Secretary has mentioned evidential problems in making such orders. There are evidential problems when informants are responsible for a tip-off, advice or hearsay and second-hand evidence because, under natural justice, the defendant is entitled to see the evidence against him and to know its origin—which takes us into the sphere of public interest immunity certificates.
Public interest immunity is a complicated area of the law. However, in granting certificates, the judge or tribunal deciding a case has to take a decision, based on case law, on whether there should be disclosure of the source of information.
I hope that the Home Secretary will take on board the fact that one of the benefits of seeking a football behaviour order in the Crown court would be that the difficulties that he mentioned—about information based on informants—would be overcome partly by a Crown court judge's ability to listen very carefully to difficult, complex arguments on public interest immunity, and, when necessary, to reject those arguments out of hand.
5.45 pm
Crown courts may also—I say this with no disrespect to magistrates courts—bring more expertise and expedition to the decision-making process. That may be one reason for requiring the orders to be made in a Crown court. Nevertheless, there may still be a difficulty because of the speed required in making an order. Information that someone might be behaving in a manner that may make it necessary to grant an order to prevent him disturbing good order may come to light only fair late on, sometimes within a day or only a few hours of the proposed departure for the match. I recognise that difficulty, and the possible need for some sort of expedited proceedings.
Another argument for bringing the proceedings in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court is that, under new clause 10, breach of a football behaviour order would entail a maximum 6 months' imprisonment. Hon. Members will know that, in practice, under provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill, six weeks is the maximum sentence that can be served in custody in a six-month sentence. We have consistently to remind the Government about that point.
I have tried in my speech specifically to point up the matter of public interest immunity. There is some danger in rushing through legislation that has not been thought out properly. The House has seen sufficient examples of such legislation. There is perhaps a temptation to have a knee-jerk reaction to current events in France and elsewhere, and to try to pass today a law that will sort out the problem. I do not think that it is possible to solve the problem today.
Today, the House can debate the issues. 1 hope that we will advance that debate in a spirit of co-operation, so that we might move towards a solution—which will be in place, if not next week, as soon as reasonably possible—and ensure that such events do not happen again.
I do not think that we will ever stamp out football hooliganism, here or abroad. Human nature and a free society are such that such behaviour will happen. Life is like that, and we will not change it. However, we can do quite a lot to cut down on the incidence of such behaviour. As the years go by, we can hammer away at the edges to improve matters. It is important for us to attempt to do that.
I dare say that this debate, which has focused on the behaviour of some English people abroad, may apply also to the behaviour of some young people from other countries. The problem is not unique to this country, and is currently probably being faced by other parliaments. I am quite sure that the Home Secretary is discussing with his counterparts across Europe and around the world whether any magic solutions—or solutions better than those that we are considering—have been discovered elsewhere. I rather doubt that any such solutions have been found, but I am sure that the Home Secretary has tried to find them. I am sure that the House would like to hear his proposed solutions.

Mr. Coaker: I apologise to the House for missing much of the speeches by Front Benchers in opening the debate. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether it will be possible after the Bill is passed to impose an anti-social behaviour order on some of our train companies, so that hon. Members might arrive for debates on time.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that it is important that the House should be debating the issues surrounding football-related violence. This group of new clauses and amendment No. 166 give us the opportunity for such a debate. Given the seriousness of what has happened in the past few days, the British people would not understand if we did not have a full and frank discussion in the Chamber. Indeed, they would have felt let down had there not been an exchange of views on how we can prevent or minimise such events in future. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Woking about the importance of the debate and the opportunities afforded by the new clause.
It is important for hon. Members to reflect on how we felt just over a week ago when we saw on television the behaviour of so-called English football supporters in Marseilles. What should have been a great feeling of elation, joy and expectation before the game, and after the game a sense of tremendous joy that we had won, became for many of us despair, disillusion, frustration and, quite frankly, embarrassment. That was a common theme.
I recall people telling me that the football match had become almost irrelevant, and the result had been soured by what had happened. When we saw the scenes on the beaches of Marseilles before the game, we could not help thinking that the people involved were supposed to be supporting the English football team and representing our country, but were simply dragging it into the gutter. Although we must recognise that they were a minority of the supporters, none the less they disgraced us all.
In discussing the new clauses, we should dispel some of the myths surrounding violence at football matches and the ways in which those involved dress up their behaviour


in an attempt to excuse it. We have become accustomed to so-called supporters saying on television, on the radio or in newspapers that they were standing up for England. I do not want them standing up for me. The vast majority of people I have met do not believe that those people are standing up for England, and it is important that that message gets through to them. I am sure that hon. Members agree that it is no good such people wrapping themselves in the banner of English nationalism as an excuse for thuggery and hooliganism, and we will have no part of it.
We must also recognise that such action is not taken by a few hooligans from depressed council estates who go abroad to vent on the streets of a foreign land their frustration at their lack of opportunity in their own society. People who commit such offences come from all sections of society. For too long we have excused hooliganism, thuggery and anti-social behaviour by saying that the people involved are kicking against bad times and a lack of opportunity. It is a lame excuse, which does not wash. It is an insult to us all, not least the law-abiding fans in Marseilles.
We must also accept that this is an English problem. The Scottish supporters drink considerable amounts of alcohol and dress in particular ways, and have been having a good time dancing in the streets, but, although they have been a little the worse for wear, by and large they have not resorted to the behaviour of the so-called England supporters.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about stiffer penalties for such offences, which are also proposed in new clause 11. The tightening of the law is the very least that the British public expect. The mythical ordinary man and woman in the street would say that, although it should not have happened, we should make sure that people who have degraded our country should not be allowed to get away with it, and are punished for what they have done. That is what the public demand of us.
I say to the Minister of State that nothing undermines public confidence in the legal system or in Parliament more than our discussing issues and passing laws that are then not enforced. We are discussing stiffer penalties. If we are drawing a line in the sand and saying that people who cross that line will be in trouble, the new laws must be enforced.
If the courts do not enforce the law and impose stricter penalties, people will say that Parliament was interested in the problem when it was on the news and caused embarrassment, and that we pretended to take action but in reality did nothing. If we increase the penalties and say that we are determined to take action against football hooliganism and anti-social behaviour, of which football hooliganism is an extreme example, it is important that the courts enforce the legislation and use their powers to impose penalties.

Mr. Lansley: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be preferable to proceed in the way proposed in new clause 11, which requires the court to make a restriction order on a person who commits a football-related offence, unless there are exceptional circumstances, rather than proceeding in the way

suggested by the Home Secretary, which involves guidance to courts and encouragement, without the House setting out its specific intentions?

Mr. Coaker: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was saying that there has to be a balance between the independence and rights of the judiciary and the right of Parliament to set the guidance within which the courts operate. When Parliament tries to give guidance on how the courts should respond in particular cases, they often ignore it or regard it as less important than we do. My right hon. Friend was saying that the framework of the Crime and Disorder Bill offers a way forward to ensure that the will of the people expressed through Parliament is enforced in the courts, and that we do not get to the point at which laws exist but are not enforced.
Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the way in which he supported the actions of the French police. We should apologise to the French people, and tell them that we wish the world cup to continue to be a celebration of football, as it has been in the vast majority of matches in the majority of cities, and represent all the best about that terrific game. My right hon. Friend was right to support the French police, and the English police in working with them. I hope that they get the message that we want them to be tough when it is necessary.
We recognise that we are talking about a small minority of hooligans rather than the vast majority of law-abiding fans. However, that small minority is a disgrace to our country and to us all. Parliament needs to address the problem in the longer term, and we hope that the French police will deal with it harshly and firmly during the world cup.

6 pm

Mr. Soames: I congratulate the Home Secretary on the spirited way in which he has taken up this excellent Tory Bill. This is my first opportunity to speak on it. I ask the Minister to convey my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the very thoughtful way in which he received a delegation that I led about public order matters and anti-social behaviour. The people I took to see him were very grateful for the measured, sensible and forthright way in which he dealt with their concerns. I am pleased that the Bill deals with such important matters. I congratulate him on having the courage to take it forward.
I also warmly endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). I agree with his comments on the behaviour of professional footballers on the field. A lot needs to be done in the management of professional sport. I saw a young British player being sent off in a rugger match the other night for stamping on the head of another player. Someone who commits that offence on the field of competitive sport should be banned from playing from his country again.
One of the best regulated sports that I have seen in Britain is Army boxing, which I followed closely when I was Minister for the Armed Forces. One element that dignified the sport was the fact that one breach of any rule would exclude the young man concerned from fighting for the Army or the regiment again. That produced a discipline and sense of sportsmanship in the ring that greatly added to the sport.
I sympathise with the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). He was aware that a known football hooligan had gone abroad, but, although he had the courage to get hold of the Home Secretary to initiate an inquiry, nothing could be done. The Minister and the Home Secretary know that that frustration at not being able to do anything causes great resentment about our civil law. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) made an important point about the House being seen to take action for the long term, not just because the issue was a matter of the moment.
I warmly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), although what the Home Secretary said was eminently sensible. The Home Secretary, the Home Office team and the police have done an enormous amount of work to close the loop on dealing with football hooligans, and the French have co-operated positively. I do not often go to football matches, and I am not an expert in crowd control, but I thought that it was a mistake to allow a lot of young over-refreshed football supporters on a beach in Marseilles to stand beside a temporary grandstand full of a lot of naturally over-excited—and, I am sure, well intentioned—Tunisians.
That was a cocktail likely to go badly wrong. It is a pity that it went badly wrong, because, if there had been police between the sets of supporters, however awful it is that there should have to be police protecting the wretched Tunisians from British supporters and vice versa, I like to think that they would have stopped what happened.
The Home Secretary is right to say that nothing can be done to guarantee the prevention of such incidents. I fully understand why the Home Secretary cannot tell me who is who and what is what in our football intelligence organisations. I wish them the best of luck as they do a very difficult job. They clearly did a very good job the night before last in spotting some of those people in Toulouse. However, it is a pity that, despite all the liaison and intelligence back-up, England was humiliated the other night by the behaviour of a small minority of disgraceful young men. That makes what happened in Marseilles even more disappointing and serious.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who spoke with great authority, pointed out that drink was a major factor. I am sure that many of the young men—and not so young men—on the beach at Marseilles on the night of the match against Tunisia had had too much to drink. That was not the scene of the most premeditated violence; it seemed more spontaneous. However, some of the young men who go abroad seem ruthlessly and viciously determined to start fights. It is frightening that there is a core determined to wreak violence and havoc wherever they go. Those are the people we must deal with.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield wanted to enable a wider and broader restraint through restriction orders on more people. That is an admirable and sensible proposition that commands support on both sides of the House, although we may differ on how to go about it. I am glad that the Home Secretary has taken up some of our ideas, and I hope that they will work. I share his anxiety—for several reasons, not just connected with football—that the provisions should be on the statute book as soon as possible.
I hope that the Home Secretary will convey a message from me and every other former service man that any service man found guilty of having taken part in any of the serious offences will be brought back and disciplined with the rigorous application of military law. They should be court-martialled at once, and thrown out of the services.
What has happened has undoubtedly damaged the good name of our country. It will have been watched with honor and anguish by our friends abroad, many of whom remember a more generous and spacious English spirit.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) mentioned the peculiar fact that there has been no violence from Scottish supporters. Somebody asked me last week why English supporters have rioted while the Scots have not. The answer is simple. The Scottish nationalists have a political party. They can channel their tartan fervour into politics. The English people who have rioted are fascists. There is a strong National Front element behind the riots that we have seen. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot reveal all the details because of data protection laws.
Such violence has not happened in this country since the Hillsborough disaster, because of better policing and video cameras. My good friend Detective Inspector Peter Chapman is in charge of football intelligence and often goes plain clothes into the crowd. He is about 5 ft 8 in tall; no one would think he was a policeman. He and his colleagues do a marvellous job.
When England go abroad, the gang of National Front hooligans get together. Their greatest asset these days is the mobile phone. They all carry them to communicate with each other. They call themselves section 18: 18 represents the first letter of the alphabet, A, and the eighth letter, H, and stands for "Adolf Hitler". It is no coincidence that a French policeman was beaten over the head with an iron bar by a German fan. In Germany, those fans call themselves "the white knights". There is a fascist link-up. That is why such incidents do not happen in this country; they happen only when England plays abroad.
The guy who was arrested in Marseilles—they called him the pig of Marseilles—comes from Naseby in Northamptonshire. He does not support any team—none of them do. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to a soldier who was among those involved. An art dealer was among their number, and one was a currency dealer from London. These were not working-class thugs. People on low wages do not have the money to go over to France and organise there. The network is known to the police, but it is very clever. It is not just a question of our imposing exclusion orders; it goes far beyond that.
The problem does not exist among the Scots, who have a different nationalist fervour. The Irish, perhaps, have problems with a different kind of nationalism. We are talking about British nationalism here, and it is difficult to stamp out. The hooligans are well organised and have plenty of money. That is the perspective into which these things must be put. They are under continual surveillance but they are recruiting all the time, and are clever.
Riots have happened in Dublin, Rome and now Marseilles. Marseilles is significant because of the Tunisian influence, Le Pen and the very strong French anti-immigrant or racist feeling there. It was an act of


incredible stupidity to take the first game to Marseilles, because the city has a huge Tunisian population and is very near Tunisia. The Tunisians do not have a vote in France—one of the strong complaints of immigrants in France. They will take the opportunity of an instance such as the match to demonstrate and to make a row about every grievance. They might try to stick it on the British—although I am not defending what happened.
No matter how much we try, we cannot get across to British fans the fact that there is a difference in policing methods in Britain and on the continent. If there is a row, a riot or a punch-up in Britain, the police will move in to arrest and lock up the three or four people having the fight. That is not the case in France or Italy. They clear the streets. Their policy is "no arrests"—they get the riot squad, with their staffs and sticks, and clear the streets. If innocent bystanders get whacked, they get whacked.
Time after time, I have told football supporters from our country not to think—because of that old nonsense about the Italians running away during the war while the British did not—that the Italians are cowards because they run away. Italians are taught from being kids that if they see the police come out with the riot sticks, they should run, because the police take no prisoners. Our British lads stand and watch, and they think that they are doing nothing wrong. When they get whacked, they start to protest—understandably. There is a different form of policing abroad.
Let me refer to alcohol. Many years ago, we realised that, if booze was flowing freely and if people could buy a bottle of cheap supermarket wine for a couple of quid—as they can, even in our country—when people were hanging around in the sun with nothing to do and were tired because they had had a long drive or an overnight journey on a ferry, it was a recipe for trouble.
One other thing sparks off trouble, and I regret having to say this—television cameras. I am not saying that we should not televise sporting events—that is democracy. But as soon as those lunatics see a television camera, they will try to get arrested. They will be in the news—the macho bandits showing off to all their mates all over Britain. They will be the cowboys riding into town with no law and order, and with a price on their heads. I have seen it during the miners' strike, on picket lines, at football matches and anywhere that a crowd of young men gather—even outside a pub on a Saturday night. If they think somebody is taking pictures, the violence gets worse. Even if we avoid television cameras, we still have to understand the macho thinking and attitude.
No matter how much the police say, "Don't sell alcohol," cafe and restaurant owners in Italy and elsewhere see a big crowd coming into a city and see the opportunity to make a great deal of money. The French bar owners said that they had never seen people drink so much and remain on their feet. They said that about the Scots—but the Scots do not have that National Front organisation.
The problem goes much deeper than football or violence on the streets. For young men now, there is no war. There has been no outlet since the Berlin wall came down. The Hillsborough disaster meant that our stadiums had to be all-seater and equipped with video cameras. There was no conflict. There was nowhere to have a punch-up. Schools have tended to cut down on sports, including football and boxing. The jobs where young men

could get rid of their energy—in the pits or the docks—have gone. They are attracted to the feeling of being in an invading army—like their fathers or grandfathers, who marched into Berlin or Tobruk with their rifles and hobnail boots. That is the British tradition.
6.15 pm
Let us not kid ourselves—the British are a violent race. We conquered half the world with the British Army, and we flogged them before the mast to get to Australia. We have always been a violent race, and it is nonsense to say that we can get it out of our system with cricket. It is time we accepted that.
In terms of exclusion orders, Interpol should be involved. The French police said that the British told them about the villains, but that the villains came armed with a sheaf of papers and a thousand rules, and the police could not keep track of them. Nobody was there to say, "Nab him, nab him and nab the other one." While we have the EU rules on free movement, we will have free movement for crime as well. Whether it is drugs being brought in easily across boundaries or thugs crossing for football matches, it is an EU problem. It is time the EU started looking at that problem, rather than shifting it on to the French or British police.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add to what has been an interesting and important debate at an important time. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I am sure that there is some truth in his comments about the impact of fascist and racist activity among English hooligans, but one must look abroad. In Germany and Holland, there is a record of fascist groups—and of football violence, but not to the same extent. Such violence is being controlled in every country and, in this country, it is being controlled substantially.
It is incumbent on us to find measures to seek to minimise the opportunities offered to those who travel abroad under the guise of being English supporters and who seek, for whatever reason, to foment violence. The matters to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred did not lie behind what happened in Marseilles to the same extent as may have been the case on other occasions; that was the burden of some of the interventions during the Home Secretary's speech.
It is not immediately clear whether some of the notifications sent to the French authorities in relation to intelligence from NCIS gave rise to prior knowledge of the extent to which those individuals were the sort of characters to whom the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred. The proposals in new clauses 10 and 11 might be especially useful in that context, although I quite understand that they can never wholly deal with those who seek to orchestrate and inspire violence. Those people will have to be tackled with the full rigour of the law, and the utmost care must be taken to try to establish the link between them and those in other countries.
The most important aspect of this debate has been the Home Secretary's announcement that, as an immediate response, he spoke to his opposite number in France to apologise for what had happened in Marseilles. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and to other hon. Members, and I think it


incumbent on the House not only to apologise for what happened in Marseilles, but to demonstrate that we feel shame and a determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said, to do what we reasonably can to ensure that such events do not happen again. In that context, new clauses 10 and 11—to which the Home Secretary made it clear he was responding—are particularly useful.
I welcome the Government's proposal to increase the sentence from one month to six months. I accept that new clause 12 represents the Government's intention to make failure to comply with a reporting duty imposed by a restriction order an arrestable offence under the Football Spectators Act 1989, but—I am not speaking as a lawyer—the intention behind new clause 11 is not only to make such a failure an arrestable offence but to give a police officer the power to arrest someone who he believes is likely to fail to comply.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Lansley: I happily give way to the Home Secretary if he wants to put me right.

Mr. Straw: The point of subsection (2) of new clause 12 is to hook into section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which contains a list of arrestable offences. Police officers also have a general power of arrest—I think under a further subsection to that section—in respect of any of the offences in the list. The power of arrest may be used where the police officer has reasonable cause to believe not only that an offence has been committed but that an offence is about to be committed. New clause 12 therefore does exactly what new clauses 10 and 11 would do.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, not least for listening to the debate and being available to give the helpful clarification that the powers would apply when the police knew so much about an individual that they could see that he intended to attend a football match overseas, and would therefore not be available to report under the restriction order.
Restriction orders have not met—indeed, in the current circumstances, we can say that they do not meet—the various needs. For example, it is clear from what the Home Secretary said that, when football-related offences have come to court, the police have sought restriction orders not as a matter of course but in very few cases—the number has increased only in recent months. One has to ask whether—even given the assurances that the Home Secretary gave in his response to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—the courts will necessarily impose restriction orders in all the circumstances in which one would desire them to. The difference between the number of restriction orders that have been imposed and the number that would have been justified is dramatic.

Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman define more specifically what the tests should be? If 4,000 such orders are to be imposed each year—that is the number of people who are convicted of offences under the legislation—that

would be incredibly difficult to police, which could bring the law into disrepute. What test would he use in imposing the orders that he suggests?

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. I suspect that, shortly after this debate ends, those 71 or so people to whom restriction orders have been applied will be reporting at a police station, but, as far as I am aware—the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—none of those people are known to have been in Marseilles last week. If, as the hon. Lady rightly says, restriction orders are automatically applied whenever a football-related offence has occurred, a substantial burden will be placed on the system—there is a risk that thousands of people would have to report to police stations and be monitored.
Now may not be the moment, and I may not be the person, to specify all the circumstances in which a restriction order should be applied, but we need to recognise that restriction orders have not been applied in anything like the appropriate number of cases, and that it would be better if they applied more widely. Perhaps new clause 11 goes too far by making application automatic, but I believe that new clauses 10 and 11 combined would give rise to a different structure.

Ms Keeble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If we are to vote on the new clauses, with which I am sure many people have great sympathy, we need to know—and it is fair to ask—in what circumstances the powers would be applied, so that we could be absolutely sure that the orders would be workable.

Mr. Lansley: It is not for me to say whether we shall vote on new clause 11—from the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke to the new clauses, I had the impression that he was focusing on new clause 10. New clause 10 would substantially add to the powers under new clause 12, which to some extent replicates new clause 11 in a way that the Government believe to be more appropriate. The difference between the proposals relates to the automaticity of the imposition of restriction orders in cases of football-related offences.
I accept that new clause 11 represents a substantial step forward, but I believe that, just as it is incumbent on the Opposition in tabling new clause 11 to contemplate the heavy burden that would arise if thousands of restriction orders were applied where previously there were only tens, so it is incumbent on the Government in rejecting the new clause to show that perhaps hundreds, rather than tens, of restriction orders will be imposed. I am informed that some 375 exclusion orders have been imposed, but even that greater number may be insufficient to meet the need.
As I said in an intervention on the Home Secretary—the right hon. Gentleman generously responded, but was not sure what point I was driving at—the evidence suggests that events in Marseilles, to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw alluded, were not orchestrated by category C hooligans. The events arose because there was a critical mass of people susceptible to being violent in certain circumstances—that is, in effect, a description of category B hooligans. As the Home Secretary rightly said, even the best intelligence-led system with the best police spotters and video tape evidence does not equip


the police to identify in advance all those who are likely to commit violence in all circumstances—and a critical mass of such persons were in Marseilles.
This country has enforced many measures that have had considerable success in identifying those likely to cause football violence. However, those measures are not sufficient to deal with a large body of persons travelling abroad to take part in a tournament; they go for a considerable time and many opportunities for violence arise.
Under those circumstances, rather than concentrating only on the identification of individuals through systems that have worked well in the past, we must contemplate putting in place a system designed to frustrate the intentions of relatively large numbers of people who have engaged in football-related violence or who we have reasonable cause to believe could be engaged in it, from travelling to another country for a tournament.
6.30 pm
There is a certain element of rough justice in these matters, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield would not deny. However, such a system would substantially reduce the critical mass of supporters travelling; the number not travelling under the auspices of the Football Association supporters scheme; and those travelling without tickets.
My second point to the Home Secretary in an intervention was that the substantial difference between his proposed response and the Opposition's two new clauses is that retrospection as regards the application of restriction orders would be prevented. The Home Secretary is right to say that one should not necessarily go down the path of retrospection and impose an additional penalty for those who have attended court, perhaps years ago, received their penalty and moved on. That is the sort of retrospection that the House would certainly be right to disavow. However, new clause 10 offers a particular benefit—the opportunity to request a court for an order to prevent someone from going abroad in pursuit of a designated match if there is reasonable cause to believe that he or she would engage in violence there.
What would be the evidence? In most cases, I imagine that it would not necessarily be informants' advice or police intelligence, but rather the hard evidence of the person's having committed a football-related offence. A degree of retrospection is involved and it is an additional penalty for having committed an offence, but it is important that we find some mechanism by which to reach back into the large body of people who have committed those offences, and frustrate the opportunity for a large number of them to travel abroad, attend England matches and possibly participate in violence.
That was the import of my two interventions on the Home Secretary and I feel strongly that my arguments demonstrate the importance of identifying the benefit of new clause 10 and not merely new clause 11, to which the Government have responded positively in two important respects. If we agreed to new clause 10, we would be able substantially to reduce the risk of the sort of violence occurring that occurred in Marseilles. The proposal would buttress measures that have until now rested on the identification of given individuals within groups travelling to other countries.
Overall, it is important to recognise that by such measures we may be able to restore a degree of confidence in the way in which English authorities deal with English supporters abroad. One difficulty that has arisen because of our failure to control English hooligans abroad—together with the French authorities, but we must take substantial responsibility—is that it has reflected badly not only on the English game and England but, potentially, on our ability to stage a tournament here.
It is wrong for that to be the implication. The European championships in 1996 were a testament to how well we can stage such a tournament. Were England to stage the world cup in 2006, we could once again show how an extraordinarily well-managed and trouble-free tournament is run. It would be an immense pity if the events in France last week led to the conclusion that England could not manage international tournaments on its own territory again.
If we can show that we are taking the additional measures necessary to control English hooligans abroad, we can get the focus back on to the success with which the authorities in this country have used NCIS, video tape evidence and so forth substantially to reduce the impact of football violence and to make football once again a popular sport and, in many instances, a family sport. On that basis, I hope that, by what we do and say this afternoon, we may promote England's cause for the world cup in 2006.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Most Labour members of the Standing Committee were incredibly well disciplined in their contributions—I even refused to be goaded by a comment by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) when he referred to the sadness of those people in Manchester who support Manchester City. I remind him that years in the wilderness do come to an end—he should consider where his party and mine sat in this House—and I hope that, in the case of Manchester City, it does not take 20 years.
Both inside and outside the House, we should at every opportunity condemn the behaviour of English fans in France. We cannot allow any excuses to be made for them and their ilk—and there can be no hiding place, either. A consistent, all-party approach to the issue is important. At no point should there be any public perception that this is in some way a party political issue: it is not. We must also resist the temptation not to back the authorities in another country. If such behaviour were being perpetrated by foreign supporters in this country, imagine how we would feel were there any doubt about the Governments of their countries fully supporting our authorities in taking the necessary action. It is important that we give the consistent message that such behaviour is unacceptable.
It is wrong to label football hooliganism as exclusively a football problem—in many ways it is a society problem. We should ask ourselves why so many young people in our society are so full of bitterness, aggression and hatred. We need to consider some of the behaviour on the streets in our cities, which has nothing to do with football, and question why we are creating citizens with so much venom, aggression and violence inside them.
A couple of weeks ago, a woman constituent in her mid-20s came to see me. She found it difficult to suppress her emotions and told me that, a week earlier, her 25-year-old boy friend had gone into the centre of Manchester for a drink with a friend and had come across two gangs of young people fighting and arguing. He had taken the trouble to intervene to break them up, only to be pursued by one gang, stabbed and, effectively, murdered. It is impossible to explain that level of hatred and violence—behaviour with which we find it so difficult to come to terms.
Undoubtedly, some people hijack football to peddle their violence and aggression and, as has been said, in some cases, a right-wing political agenda—well organised and often co-ordinated. Such violence brings with it status and, too often, the oxygen of publicity. In any discussion of the problem, we must consider the responsibility of the press and the media and the way in which they report such incidents. There is a thin dividing line between naming and shaming those people and giving them the status that they actively desire among their peer group—other people who behave in that way.
Not only the media and the politicians have a responsibility to respond to violence, aggression and inappropriate behaviour in football. The football authorities need to police football, and the behaviour of players on the field. What message is given to young people when sports stars publicly attack their partners, committing acts of domestic violence that seem almost to be an accepted part of celebrity status? Famous footballers are allowed to get away with that with no disciplinary action taken. What does that say about what is acceptable in football, and in the events surrounding it?

Mr. Bob Russell: Should such players be sacked by their managers?

Mr. Lewis: If I ran any organisation, whether a business or a football club—as I am a Manchester City fan, that is possible—I would undoubtedly feel that the recent behaviour of a famous international footballer justified his dismissal. The Prime Minister was right to talk of encouraging employers to sack hooligans. They must understand that the consequences of their actions will impact on every aspect of their lives. It is not acceptable to go to another country, have a bit of "fun", and come home to resume everyday activities. They should not be allowed to view their behaviour in that way.
We should not forget that there is a direct link between the behaviour of those people and its economic consequences for the nation. It is not just our reputation that is at stake. There is a real risk of our losing international sporting events, such as future world cups, because of the behaviour of English fans abroad. That will have direct economic implications for the United Kingdom, and that is why there should be economic implications for individuals who perpetrate that behaviour.
It is important not do anything with the law that is regarded outside the House as gimmickry. Legislation should be seen to be effective—to work. We need more time to reflect on the changes being proposed today. It is good to know that an all-party view is being taken about how we must treat and condemn hooligans.

Mr. James Clappison: There has been a great deal of common ground in this good and constructive debate. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) were both right to say that our constituents expect us to have such a debate in the light of last week's events. We must consider what more we can do to counter such events.
It was perhaps predictable that there would be condemnation during the debate of those events and the behaviour involved. There have been differences of emphasis on the two sides of the House about the underlying causes of those events.
Having listened to the arguments about different causes, I believe that we would be unwise to discount any of them. Anyone who has listened to the debate will have been struck by the feeling on both sides that we need to do whatever we can to bring those events to an end. The Home Secretary took the House through both the Government's action and his response to our new clauses. In the light of what he said, I think that it was well worth our exploring what more we could do through the Bill to confront the problem.
I must introduce one discordant note, although I do not want to. I must do justice to my own remarks on the Bill in the light of comments made by the Home Secretary. I was surprised to hear him follow the Prime Minister's example of quoting me as saying that the Bill was "dangerously unworkable". I did not ever say that in Committee. It is a quotation which the Home Secretary found in an article in The Sunday Telegraph. He had to trawl through the press cuttings library to find it, but what he has done shows the danger of quoting remarks out of context. He looks surprised; perhaps he did not have the whole article. If he reads it, he will find that it is about use of the anti-social behaviour order in neighbour disputes.
The headline is "Neighbours risk jail in moves to curb `incivility'". It begins:
People who swear at irritating neighbours will be on course for a five-year prison term under plans drawn up the Home Office.
It goes into some detail about that, quoting the secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, Mr. Harry Fletcher, as saying:
The Bill rightly targets impossible neighbours, but every street has neighbours in dispute and it would be ridiculous if they all ended up in court.
I am then quoted as saying that the proposals were "dangerously unworkable", and possibly in breach of the European convention on human rights.
I was surprised that the Home Secretary did not acknowledge the context of my comments.

Mr. Michael: Keep digging.

Mr. Clappison: I shall dig a very big hole for the Home Secretary, because I was even more surprised, in the light of the Government's own guidance on anti-social behaviour orders, which was issued on the day the Bill began its proceedings. It was not available when my remarks were made to The Sunday Telegraph, but its first paragraph stated that the orders were intended to be used for criminal or sub-criminal activity, not for civil disputes between neighbours. I am surprised, therefore, that the Home Secretary reproaches me for agreeing with the Government, and for having probed what the Government


were trying to do, until they came to agree with me. Not once in the debates on the anti-social behaviour orders did we vote against them. If the Home Secretary is referring to consistency on the Bill, he is skating on very thin ice on a wide range of issues for himself and his hon. Friends..
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was right to talk of the need to probe the definition of anti-social behaviour orders. He was also right to say that, although we have had reservations about the wide-ranging nature of the definitions, we all know what sort of thing we are aiming to bring to an end among football hooligans.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made some interesting points. He mentioned events in Dublin three years ago, which I and many members of the public will remember. There was a terrible disturbance involving English football supporters at an international so-called friendly. Such events have happened all too often, and they underline that, as well as condemning them, we must see what more we can do about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was among the hon. Members who spoke about that, making important points about the role of drink. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, along with hon. Members on both sides, rightly drew attention to certain sinister people who go to football.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made an important speech about discipline. He struck a chord with many of us by saying, with some authority, that any service man who takes part in such events should expect severe discipline. He was right to say that the sense of discipline that the Army engenders sets a good example on and off the sports pitch. One of the most important examples of Army discipline that I have seen recently was the good work done at the Colchester military correction facility—the young offenders experimental institute known as the glasshouse—with young offenders.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a good speech, and teased out the Government's intentions on power of arrest. He will know that the police have been concerned that they should have a power to arrest people who look as if they will break a restriction order, and should be able to deal with them at that point instead of having to wait until later. He secured a valuable reply from the Home Secretary about his intentions in that regard.
The debate was well worth having, and it was worth considering the proposed new clauses. The Government have accepted the point that we made in our new clauses about the need for a power of arrest to be attached. The police have sought such a power in the past. The Government have also accepted that there should be a stiffer penalty for people who breach restriction orders—one month is not enough; six months is more appropriate.
We welcome the Government's assurances about extending guidance to magistrates courts and prosecutors, to ensure that restriction orders are deployed more widely. However, we put the Home Secretary on notice that, in view of the relatively small number of restriction orders made, it is important to examine the matter and ensure that more are made in the future. People who have been in trouble at football matches in this country should not be allowed to travel abroad and export that trouble.
We noted the Home Secretary's remarks about the future adoption of a football behaviour order, and we listened carefully to his reasons for not being able to accept the proposed new clause in its present form. While we were not entirely convinced by the largely technical reasons that he gave, we are prepared to join in any future consultations on the issue. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to do all that we can to resolve the matter. We cannot guarantee that such people will be prevented from travelling abroad and creating trouble, but the Government have accepted that we must do more than we are doing.
We must reassure our law-abiding constituents—who surveyed recent events with absolute horror and felt a sense of shame at the damage that those hooligans did to our international reputation—that we are doing all we can within the ambit of the law to resolve the problem and to prevent such people from travelling abroad, sullying our name, causing damage and upset to other people, causing injury and becoming involved in criminal activities. We must be continually on our guard to see what more can be done. The Opposition will continue to approach the issue in that constructive spirit.

Mr. Straw: I commend the speech by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and repeat my thanks to the Opposition for arranging the debate. I also thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the spirit in which they have entered the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) sagely warned the House about the dangers of enacting emergency legislation and of not examining propositions carefully when we agree with their objectives. That is good advice, but we must send a clear message that, despite differences of detail and emphasis, there is absolutely united opinion in the House—as I believe there is among decent people across the country—against those who commit violence and disrupt the enjoyment of football at home or abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) made something of a confession when he admitted that he is a Manchester City supporter. I regard that as a badge of honour. If he wishes to join the ranks of eccentric football supporters, he might encourage his colleagues on the Public Administration Committee to ask Mr. Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's press secretary, who will appear before the Committee tomorrow, how someone with such excellent professional skills could be a long-term supporter of Burnley football club.
My hon. Friend has raised a serious point for Manchester City supporters—which also gives me an opportunity to rib Mr. Campbell yet again regarding his support for Burnley—as soccer provides great enjoyment to people not only through watching the game but by giving them a sense of place. It gives them an opportunity to share common experiences and to rib each other in a friendly manner. That is part of the richness of our society and of many others. For that reason, people are very angry to see a game that provides simple enjoyment to many millions of people besmirched in this way.
The principal issue that we have debated is whether new clause 10 is sufficient to pass immediately into legislation in its present form. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) chided me and implied that


I was unwilling to accept the new clause simply—I paraphrase his argument—because it was proposed by the Opposition. When I first entered the House 19 years ago, there was considerable debate across the Chamber. That was greatly to the credit of both sides of the House and the reputation of Parliament. I regret—both parties were at fault; I do not mete out blame—that debate in the House became coarsened during the 1980s. If the then Conservative Government proposed a measure, we felt that we had to oppose it by virtue of that fact, and vice versa.
That showed great disrespect to our voters, and I do not believe that either party gained any advantage from such an approach. I determined—I think that this view is shared by my colleagues—that, if I sat on the Treasury Bench, 1 would not adopt that approach. I have sought to ensure that I listen to all propositions—that has been obvious with the Human Rights Bill and other legislation—and judge them on their merits. We did that as soon as the two new clauses were proposed. I accepted two parts of them, and I have explained how we can achieve a third proposition via a different route.
We examined new clause 10 in detail and sought the views of both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the NCIS. I do not think that we could have consulted those organisations more promptly—they were contacted within the day. It may interest the House to learn that ACPO wrote to officials in my Department saying:
We agree with the principles expressed in proposed amendments … We have some concerns about the standards of proof required to obtain an order. We are concerned also about the legislative patchwork that is developing in relation to policing football matches. It may be appropriate to take a more considered view of the problems through existing European Union Working Groups.
The NCIS wrote to an official to say:
Whilst the proposal to create a Football Behaviour Order may initially look attractive NCIS has reservations regarding the standard of proof that would be required to obtain such an order.
It also raised the point, which I made, about the problems that would arise if it were necessary to provide details of current intelligence in order to obtain a football behaviour order. They are some of the problems with the current proposal for an order.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked whether the Crown court rather than the magistrates court should have the power initially. That is a very sensible suggestion, which we clearly cannot consider in the time available. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that the Opposition had considered the idea of anti-social behaviour orders so that the Bill would contain workable provisions. I commend the Standing Committee and Opposition Members for doing so. However, that examination took a considerable period, and time is not available now.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that it would take only one or two weeks to examine the Bill and put it in order. That is possible, but not likely, given the number of people we would have to consult and whom they would have to consult in turn—for example, ACPO would have to consult its members. Given the stage we are at in the parliamentary timetable, two weeks' delay would mean that the Bill could not become law until late October. By that time, many of those who had served

sentences in France would be back in this country. The additional powers of arrest and the extension of sentences from one to six months would not be available in respect of those who had been convicted of relevant offences in France and for whom the restriction orders could be obtained.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. We are embarked on a common purpose to ensure that the national shame that has been heaped on our land in the past week as a result of the behaviour of some so-called supporters in Marseilles does not happen to that extent again, or, if it does, that even more effective measures are taken by courts both abroad and in this land properly and effectively to punish such people and so reduce the prospect of such behaviour ever happening again.
As I have explained, there are difficulties with new clause 10. In the light of what I have said and of the undertakings that I have given thoroughly to consult the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may see fit to withdraw the motion.

Sir Norman Fowler: In view of the undertaking and assurances that the Home Secretary has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 1

REDUCTION IN AGE AT WHICH CERTAIN SEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL

`.—(1) In subsections (1A) and (1C) of section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".

(2) In subsections (1) and (6) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".

(3) In section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (homosexual offences)—

(a) in subsections (1) and (5)(c), for the word "eighteen"; and
(b) in subsection (8), for the word "18", there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".

(4) In paragraphs (1) and (5) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), for the word "18" there shall be substituted the word "17" .' .—[Ann Keen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

Ann Keen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 2, after 'sixteen', insert
`(except when one party is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, in which case both parties must have attained the age of eighteen).'.
Amendment (h) to the proposed clause, in line 2, after `sixteen' insert
`(except when one party is over the age of twenty-one years, in which case the other party must have attained the age of eighteen).'.


Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in line 3, leave out 'and (6)'.
Amendment (c) to the proposed clause, in line 4, leave out 'word "eighteen"' and insert 'words "eighteen years'.
Amendment (d) to the proposed clause, in line 5, leave out 'word "sixteen"' and insert
`words "sixteen years (except when one party is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, in which case both parties must have attained the age of eighteen years)".'.
Amendment (i) to the proposed clause, in line 5, leave out 'word "sixteen"' and insert
`words "sixteen years (except when one party is over the age of twenty-one years, in which case the other party must have attained the age of eighteen years)".'.
Amendment (e) to the proposed clause, in line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) In subsection (6) of that section, for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted "sixteen, or as the case may be, eighteen".'.
Amendment (f) to the proposed clause, in line 10, at end insert—
`(3A) In that section, after subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
(8A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, subsections (1), (5) and (8) shall have effect as if "eighteen" were substituted for "sixteen".'.
Amendment (j) to the proposed clause, in line 10, at end insert—
'(3A) In that section, after subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
(8A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is over the age of twenty-one, subsections (1), (5) and (8) shall have effect as if 'eighteen' were substituted for 'sixteen'.":.
Amendment (g) to the proposed clause, in line 13, at end insert—
'(4A) In that Article, after paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—
(5A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, paragraphs (1) and (5) shall have effect as if '18' were substituted for '17'.".'.
Amendment (k) to the proposed clause, in line 13, at end insert—
'(4A) In that Article, after paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—
(5A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is over the age of 21, paragraphs (1) and (5) shall have effect as if '18' were substituted for '17'.".'.
New clause 4—Circumstances in which certain sexual acts are lawful—
`.—(1) In subsections (1B) of section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.
(3) In subsection (2) of section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (homosexual offences), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.
(4) In paragraph (2) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.'.
New clause 8—Abuse of position of trust—
`(1) It shall be an offence for a person to whom this section applies to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 18 years.

(2) This section applies to a person in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the girl with whom he has sexual intercourse.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for not more than two years.'.
Government amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 119, page 95, line 14, at end insert—
`( ) section (circumstances in which certain sexual acts are lawful)(3);'.
Amendment No. 61, in page 95, line 21, at end insert—
`( ) section (Abuse of position of trust)' .
Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 7, in page 95, line 31, after `Sections', insert
`(circumstances in which certain sexual acts are lawful)(4),'.
Amendment No. 62, in page 95, line 31, after `Sections', insert
`(Abuse of position of trust)'.
Government amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 8, in schedule 8, page 157, line 21, at end insert—
`113. In section 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(4A) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a person subject to the notification requirements of this Part by reason of an offence which ceases to be an offence after the commencement of sections (Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful) and (circumstances in which certain acts are lawful) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 shall no longer be subject to those notification requirements after the commencement of those sections.".'.
Government amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 9, in title, line 5, after `trial:' insert
`to bring the criminal law affecting homosexual acts more in line with the criminal law affecting heterosexual acts;'.

Ann Keen: This debate is about equality. The purpose of new clause 1 is to make the age of consent equal for everyone. It is an all-party clause, which will be decided, as I believe it should be, on a free vote.
It is fundamental in any democracy that the rights and responsibilities of all citizens are protected equally under the law. The question is whether that principle of equality should extend to gay men. We are one of the last nations in the European Union yet to legislate for equality on the age of consent. Just over a week ago, the Finnish Parliament passed a similar law, on a unanimous vote, without one speaker opposing it. A spokesperson for the Parliament said:
The politicians were more interested in other serious issues affecting the Crime Bill.
Many of us taking part in this debate and the campaign as a whole regard the case for equality as so obvious that a full debate is needless, but I know that there is some opposition in the House. Not only do we have a tradition of full debate in the House, but I believe that it is important to have the arguments for new clause 1 recorded.
The debate is definitely not about whether 16 or 18 is the right or wrong age for sexual activity to commence; it is about the abolition of discrimination, upholding the rights of individuals and supporting a community in


which responsible people seek to behave within the law, a community that feels the right to challenge archaic laws. Our legal structure discriminates against a part of our society. It has asked the House to reconsider an aspect of the law that perpetuates that inequality. I am confident that by objectively considering the facts before us on its behalf, we can uphold its request and amend our position to reflect today's values.
When the age of consent was last debated in 1994, I listened from the Strangers Gallery. I heard the impressive contributions of the main proposers of the amendment: Edwina Currie, Neil Kinnock and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). I heard the dire protections of the opponents of equality and I heard our Prime Minister make his memorable speech. I heard the dire predictions of the opponents of equality, that any change in the law would lead to innocent young men being recruited into homosexuality. Of course, that has not happened—the sky has not fallen in—but in 1994 there was a fudge. The age of consent for gay men was reduced from 21 to 18, and the inequality remained. I believe that the law should be clear, certain and enforceable.
The uneasy compromise of 1994 has already been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. In the case brought by Euan Sutherland and Chris Morris, who were 16 and still criminalised by our law, the European Commission of Human Rights condemned our unequal age of consent. Such an inequality is a violation of article 8 of the convention—the right to privacy—and of article 14, which provides that the rights set out in the convention are to be enjoyed by all citizens without discrimination.
The court did not accept that disapproval of homosexuality can ever in itself
constitute an objective or reasonable justification for inequality of treatment under the criminal law".
In our country, with many different religions and cultural traditions, there will, of course, be those who regard lesbians and gay men as abnormal. I recognise that those views are sincerely held, but, as the European Court has said, they cannot be the basis of our criminal law. As the Wolfenden report said so long ago:
There must be a realm of private morality that is in brief and crude terms not the law's business.
It cannot be the role of the state to work out people's sexuality for them. It is for individuals to work it out for themselves. The purpose of the criminal law in this area should not be to put police into bedrooms or to coerce gay men to be heterosexual. The purpose of the law is to protect the vulnerable and punish those who exploit them.
My hon. Friends will agree that adolescence is not an easy time in life. For young gay people, it is often an especially difficult period. The higher age of consent for young gay men adds to their worries. The threat of criminal prosecution serves only to add to their sense of isolation and loneliness. How dare we rob young men of their teenage years, denying them years that they should use to prepare for adulthood?

Mr. Allan Rogers: As I understand it, my hon. Friend's new clause is to allow sexual intercourse to be legal for a person aged 16. It is not in

any sense preventing people from being homosexual, heterosexual or whatever. It is purely to allow a 16-year-old to have sexual intercourse legally, not to deny anyone's sexuality.

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend's point is incorrect. The purpose of the new clause is to make everyone equal under the law.
New clause 1 is not only for gay people but for their parents. The current law provides no support to the parents of young people trying to come out to their parents. The law brands their children as not only different but criminal in its eyes. I have received many letters from gay men that talk about their experiences of growing up in society literally as criminals. These young men were terrified of revealing their developing sexuality, and faced abuse and bullying.
One such young man was 16-year-old Albert Kennedy, who, in 1989, fell to his death from a top of a car park in Manchester while trying to escape a car load of what are described as "queer bashers." Albert was a depressed teenager. His short, tragic life had been filled with rejection. The threat of being branded a criminal could not have helped ease his mind, and it fuelled the prejudice of those who sought to persecute him. The Albert Kennedy Trust, a registered charity, was set up in 1989 in his memory, with the aim of ensuring that no lesbian or gay teenager need feel alone or unwanted, and that there is help to provide a positive home environment. Those who run the trust are adamant that equalising the age of consent and removing the threat of criminal prosecution is essential if we are to prevent future tragedies such as Albert Kennedy.
The London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard is another organisation which helps young gay people. It has been in operation for more than 25 years, and has gained much respect and recognition. I visited its premises recently and discussed many issues with the voluntary staff. They told me about the silent calls made to the organisation by those who are too afraid to speak. Even if they speak to the voluntary staff across the Switchboard lines, they feel that they are breaking the law. Some of these young people try to pretend that they are older than they are. Some Members should visit the Switchboard. It is an excellent organisation. Having visited it, some Members may have a better understanding of the situation.
I also have the support of the Hounslow youth counselling service, and I met some of its members on Friday. It is an organisation in my constituency which offers counselling and support to young people.
Members opposing the new clause have every right to express their own views but I ask them to listen to those organisations that work with and for young people on a daily basis. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, along with other organisations and expert charities linked with the protection of young people, including Barnardos, has also expressed its support for the new clause, stating:
continuing discrimination stigmatises young people growing up gay and hinders them from developing a positive identity. Young people should and must be helped, not prevented from coming to terms with their sexuality.
As it stands, the law does not protect young gay men against exploitation. It creates fear and secrecy, not openness and support. Young men are fearful of being


open with their parents or those adults to whom they would normally look for information, help and support. Prejudice protects abuse; it does not prevent it. I do not want our children to grow up to live in a world that has laws that discriminate and offend the right for everyone to be himself or herself. Fearful of being branded criminals, many young gay men are unable to seek health advice and sex education.
In the past 10 years, we have learnt much about reducing sexual health risks. We know that personal health depends on good self-esteem, accurate health information, access to advice and support. All those essentials are undermined by our unequal age of consent. We compromise reputable agencies that cannot give practical support and advice, because to do so would condone sexual relations between young men that the law brands as criminals.

Mr. John Butterfill: The hon. Lady mentions an unequal age of consent. She says also that the purpose of the new clause is to equalise the age of consent. That being so, why does she include the offence of buggery in subsection (1)? The age of consent for buggery is already equal at 18. The effect of her new clause would be to permit buggery of 16-year-old girls as well as boys. Will the hon. Lady explain why she seeks to do that?

Ann Keen: I have already explained that I do not think that it is for the law to police people's bedrooms. We need to bring about a more open society where people can discuss their sexuality but with consent.
As I was saying, in the past 10 years, we have learnt so much. All professional medical and nursing opinion has stressed the importance of changing the law. The British Medical Association has said:
Of prime concern to the medical profession as a whole are the concerns that the present law may inhibit efforts to improve the sexual health of young homosexual men".
Nursing organisations have agreed with that sentiment, and say:
An equal age of consent would also enable the mental and emotional health needs of young homosexual men to be better met.
Before entering Parliament, I was a district nurse. I worked with families and people who were affected by HIV and AIDS, and I was adviser to the centre of sexual health and HIV studies at Thames Valley university. With years of first-hand experience in the nursing and medical professions, I have been able to consider very carefully matters relating to health risks and the age of consent. I am convinced that the law as it stands is a serious threat to the health of young gay men.
We should send one clear message to all young people. We need to say that we value the health of all our young people equally, and we will treat everyone equally. I pay tribute to organisations such as the Terrence Higgins trust, the National AIDS Trust, Body Positive, London Lighthouse and many other groups that have done, and continue to do, so much work in the gay community to promote safer sex. I agree with the sentiments that are set out in the Green Paper entitled "Our Healthier Nation":
good health is no longer about blame, but about opportunity and responsibility … tackling inequalities generally is the best means of tackling health inequalities in particular".
7.15 pm
The law should give equal protection to all. It has been suggested that boys are more immature than girls, although there is some variance in the age of maturity. The important thing is that medical opinion is clear that young men of 16 are not particularly confused about their sexuality, or less mature. The law as it stands permits a young man of 16 or 17 to sleep with his girl friend, even to marry her. Yet if he is gay he cannot enter into any consensual sexual relationship with somebody of his own age. That is a ridiculous double standard.
Of course unwelcome sexual attentions of a serious nature warranting criminal prosecution are equally offensive whether the victim is a man or a woman, gay or not. No means no, and the same law should therefore apply to all.
The BMA report to which I have referred makes it clear that all the reputable research evidence shows that adult sexual orientation is usually established before the age of puberty in boys and girls. Other research tells us what common sense suggests, which is that the young gay man seeks relationships with people of his own age. One year is the average difference in age for gay partners when they have their first sexual experience. The myth of the vulnerable, confused young man was rejected by the Wolfenden report more than 40 years ago. It stated:
Our medical witnesses were unanimously of a view that the main sexual pattern is laid down in the early years of life and the majority of them held that it is usually fixed by the age of sixteen.
The myth has been seen as such by professional medical and child care experts ever since. I hope that together we can finally lay that myth to rest.
The principle of equality has already been accepted in many European and Commonwealth countries. Only a month ago, the South African supreme court swept away its discriminatory anti-gay sex laws, following the principles of the new South African constitution, which guarantees the rights of all minorities including lesbians and gay men. The example of South Africa is a powerful one precisely because it is a country which has had to learn to reconcile immense differences. It has had to find a way of including all its citizens in a new nation where the rights of all minorities are protected.
The point that I make about the experience of other countries is not that we should slavishly follow them, but that in no case and in no society have negative predictions about the age of consent come to pass. We have to find our own path for our own country. The question before us is whether to treat citizens as second-class and less valued because their sexuality is different. We have to make that choice together tonight.
The right to vote and the right to speak openly and freely are privileges that we take for granted. Let me remind the House how those rights were gained: at one time or another, Members of the British Parliament have taken brave strides to uphold the rights of individuals, and have convinced Parliament as a whole to introduce legislative change. This debate relates to the age of consent for a specific section of our community—the gay population.
Controversial? Yes—but no more so than was the Representation of the People Act in 1918, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, or the Race Relations Act in 1976. This is yet another campaign for equality, and I am


privileged to speak on behalf of so many people. These have been busy and interesting times, and I have met some wonderful people. To have been in both Gay Times and Good Housekeeping in one week was indeed an experience, although my family believes I have no right to be in either.
Many politicians who have served in the House have done much to advance the cause, including the former Member, Leo Abse, who is a constituent of mine and with whom I had the pleasure of speaking at the weekend; Humphrey Berkeley, who also lived in Brentford and Isleworth and who sacrificed his political career for this cause and continued to work for equality until his recent death; and many other right hon. and hon. Members who advanced the cause of equality. Of those outside the House, I pay tribute to Sir Ian McKellen, Michael Cashman, Antony Grey, the former director of the Homosexual Law Reform Society, Angela Mason and all at Stonewall and other organisations.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Keen: No.
I pay special tribute to all those individuals who have stood, with pride, to be themselves.

Mr. Gale: Hon. Members are not supposed to read speeches in the Chamber.

Hon. Members: Oh!.

Ann Keen: I sincerely hope that the debate will concentrate on equality and justice for families, friends and constituents. Many of us who represent diverse metropolitan communities, none more obvious than our capital city of London, are well used to welcoming and celebrating the cosmopolitan life style that that diversity brings. However, many hon. Members represent rural areas, smaller towns and communities that are less obviously diverse, and, in such areas, Members of Parliament are less likely to be contacted by gay men. That is because of the feeling of isolation experienced by those regarded as different by their neighbours. It is even more important that they, the silent minority, are represented, because the need for equality is the same.

Mr. Gale: On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Keen: No.
We have the opportunity to move forward and to make a change. People rightly feel discriminated against. They feel a strong desire to live within the law and, confident that their case is justified, they believe that their voice will be heard. Tonight, the House can take a decision demonstrating that the voice of the communities we all serve will be listened to. By agreeing to the new clause, we shall signal once again that we have a House of Commons that will deliver equality and justice. We must take a positive step forward in creating a culture in which all law-abiding citizens are given the opportunity to live their lives openly and freely, confident that they will not be discriminated against.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been the custom and practice of the House over many years, first, to engage in debate and, secondly,

not to read speeches. If we are to be able to debate this subject in a civilised manner, it really is time that hon. Members stopped reading their speeches and started to allow other hon. Members to participate in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for quite a long time and he knows—[Interruption.] Order. It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who is speaking to decide whether to give way to interventions.

Ann Keen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I have given way to hon. Members on both sides equally—that is equality.
Families—mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters—who love and respect their gay family member are pained and angered when prejudice and criminal law discriminate against their loved one. It is about time that families were all equal. Those principles represent the foundation stones of the new clause, and they are the principles which we must endorse.
The House has the opportunity to end discrimination, and we have to make a choice. We can take from the past those values of respect for others that are most enduring and translate them into the modern world, or we can simply cling to those old prejudices that have been most damaging and have forced generations of lesbians and gay men to live as second-class citizens. We have an opportunity to welcome all those men and women as equal members of our society, and, this time, we must take it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) speaks with conviction and sincerity, and we have listened to her with respect, but I would ask her and those who share her point of view to consider for a moment that there is another point of view, and that it is important that it should be expressed in this debate.
I speak, quite unashamedly, for the traditional, orthodox Christian point of view, which holds that homosexuality and lesbian practices are not another and an equivalent normality; and which holds that they are practices that not only are different from heterosexual behaviour, but should not be ranked as equal or equivalent to it. Having said that, I have no wish and never have had any wish to persecute or prosecute any man or woman for his or her personal behaviour. However, the House has to concern itself with many matters. The hon. Lady spoke eloquently about equality and she was right to do so, but there is another duty that is laid on each and every Member of Parliament, which is the duty to protect and to succour the vulnerable.
The hon. Lady spoke of her background and of her experience as a nurse; she spoke with feeling and with great knowledge. Before I entered the House 28 years ago, I was, for 10 years, a schoolmaster, and I want to refer to that period in my life for a moment or two.
During that period, I came across some extremely unhappy young men who had been preyed upon by older men, and whose whole manner and way of life had been changed and distorted as a result. Many of those young men were 15, 16 or 17 years old. I speak as the father of two sons who are now well over that age, and I do not


believe that a 16-year-old boy is indeed a fully mature adult. It is important that we take that into account in our deliberations this evening.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has recognised that issue in his amendment. If, by chance, the hon. Lady's new clause is carried this evening—I hope that it will not be, but suspect that it will—I hope that there will be massive support for the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which recognises the plight and the potential plight of the vulnerable and does something about it by stating that those in authority or in a position of trust who take advantage of young men or women should be subject to the full rigours of the law.
It is not easy to talk about homosexuality. The most regrettable aspect of life today is that all forms of sex have been commercially exploited to such an extent that they represent a growing cancer in society. Many of those seeking to protect homosexuals are also, in my view, trying to go further and promote homosexuality. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I stand by my remark. I dare say many Members during the past week have received an envelope bearing the warning:
The enclosed homosexual literature is described by its publishers as sexually explicit, and its pornographic content may cause offence".
The leaflet inside, put out by the Terrence Higgins Trust, certainly does cause offence. If it fell into the hands of innocent young men, it might tend to deprave and corrupt them.
The commercial exploitation of sex, and television's lack of regard for childhood innocence, have gone a long way towards destroying that innocence. I deeply regret that; but there are still young men and women who are brought up to try to follow a Christian life. If any of them came across this sort of literature, they could find it pretty shocking.
7.30 pm
If we vote against the hon. Lady's new clause, we shall damage no one; but if we vote for it, we run the risk of damaging some people. I am content to accept that some may be born with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality—I am not medically knowledgeable enough to pass comment. I am convinced, however, that many people are not born homosexual—it is for them that we must have a special regard. Would anyone seriously suggest that every sailor who followed a homosexual way of life was born homosexual? One thinks of the old description of the Navy,
Rum, sodomy and the lash".
[Laughter.] There is nothing funny about it: it is a perfectly reasonable point to make in support of my argument. We all know that in the last century and the early years of this one, there was a high incidence of the practice in certain walks of life—but I do not believe that every young man who followed that way of life was born to it.
It is with regret that I must oppose the hon. Lady's amendment and hope that others will consider doing likewise. Our duty is to protect the innocent. If even one young man would be adversely affected by the amendment, we should take that seriously into account.

Mrs. Angela Browning: One of the vulnerable aspects of 16 and 17-year-olds who may

be seduced or preyed upon by people of their own age group, or by older men, lies in the fact that it would be illegal to rape them, but not to have sex with them in the way that the amendment would allow. Any Member who has had to deal with a case of male rape will know just how difficult such cases are to bring to justice, how profound their effect on the victims are, and how painful such an experience would be for a 16 or 17-year-old.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally valid and moving point.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If my hon. Friend takes the point that someone who has been raped finds it difficult to go to the police, would he agree that it would be even more difficult for someone to go to the police if, by so doing, he might lay himself open to a criminal charge?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I can understand why many people adhere to that point of view. There is never a perfect solution to any problem of this nature. My own view, as I said at the outset, is that homosexuality is not equivalent to normality. Secondly, I do not believe that every homosexual is born homosexual. Thirdly, I do believe that 16-year-olds are especially vulnerable and deserve the protection of this House. That is why I oppose the new clause, and urge colleagues of all parties to think most seriously before they cast their votes.

Mr. Ashton: My amendment—amendment (a)—has been signed by more than 30 Members, some of them senior Members of the House, of all parties. It is not anti-homosexual; it is designed to equalise the age of consent for boys and girls at 18, in certain situations. If my amendment were carried, I would also vote for new clause 1.
Tonight gives us the opportunity to debate the most important report to emerge last year, even though it was never debated in the House. I refer to the Utting report entitled "People Like Us", which concerns safeguards for children living away from home. It makes horrifying reading; I urge every Member to read it thoroughly before casting any votes—I accept that that might prove difficult by 10 pm.
In this country, 200,000 children live away from home; 110,000 are in boarding schools, and 50,000 live at any one time with foster parents; 2,600 15 and 16-year-olds are in prison on remand; many others are in hospital, private children's homes or local authority homes. Many of them have parents overseas to whom they cannot turn; many of them are abused.
The list of abuses is horrendous—even stepfathers are sometimes abusers. The report says:
The Review was precipitated by past activities of sexually and physically abusive terrorists in children's homes. Such persistent abusers may be a small proportion of all those who harm children, but they create havoc with their lives. A single perpetrator is likely in a lifetime's career to abuse hundreds of children, who suffer pain, humiliation and torment, and incur permanent emotional damage.
It is the fate of such children that led me to table my amendment, which I am glad to note many Members support.

Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that many abusers of children in these circumstances are not


homosexual? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) tried to classify people who might have served in the Navy, and so on, but it would be quite wrong—does my hon. Friend agree?—to suggest that all child abusers are necessarily homosexual.

Mr. Ashton: I said at the start of my speech that the amendment deals with girls and boys. I have spoken about children, and the report is about children, not about homosexuality and discrimination. I am sorry if my hon. Friend has misunderstood practically everything that I have said.
The Utting report was undertaken after the campaign carried out by Esther Rantzen's famous Childline, which said in evidence that it had found
a malignant institutional culture in such situations.
Utting talks about going through
a crash course in human, predominantly male, wickedness.
At page 30, it states that two thirds of fostered children in a London borough had been sexually abused, some of whom were seriously at risk. Foster children may suffer far worse abuse by people in charge than young people in other situations.
I first examined the issue through a question in 1994, after the previous debate on this subject. I asked the Home Office to
list the age of consent for both men and women in each EC country.
Throughout the EC,
a higher age may apply where the older person is in a position of authority, influence or trust".—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 600.]
Those are the words in my amendment. I did not make them up—they were used in answer to my question, and the Home Office listed certain countries in which that applied.
I have been asked how I define "authority, influence or trust". In 99 per cent. of cases, those words would define themselves, but I will give an example. Under my amendment, an affair between a teacher and a 16-year-old boy or girl would be perfectly lawful—if the teacher and pupil were not at the same school. If they were at the same school, however, and the teacher could be defined as being in a position of "authority, influence or trust", the parents of youngsters at the school would be angry, and would naturally say that what had happened was not fair, what the public wanted, or what Parliament wanted or intended with respect to equality. In such circumstances, the age of consent should be 18. The amendment does not discriminate against gays; it would lift the age of consent for girls to 18 in such circumstances.

Ms Jean Corston: Several hon. Members, myself included, have some sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend is making, but does he accept that many of us would feel uneasy about introducing the criminal law into the matter? He is discussing an abuse of a position of trust. Surely if we are to have a law that confronts abuse of a position of trust at work, it should

be an employment matter under the civil law, where there is a lower standard of proof. It certainly should not be dealt with under the criminal law.

Mr. Ashton: I fully understand what my hon. Friend says and will come to that point in few moments, if she will bear with me. I can try only to amend existing law, and if that law provides for two years' imprisonment, that is what I have to put in the amendment. This is not a Second Reading debate; we are discussing my amendment, which therefore has to tie in with existing law—that is the criminal law aspect of it.
The deterrent of law is badly needed in such situations. The report says that young prisoners are often bullied—they are not protected by the Children Act 1989, and have no immediate family support. The report says that young people told Utting and Childline of their bewilderment and alienation when adults whom they trusted betrayed that trust.
Those who are abused often become abusers. The report says that sexual abuse is highly addictive. Boys or girls who are abused, but who are not old enough or physically strong enough to stand up to it and protect themselves, often run away. In February, a newspaper article announced a "Child sex crackdown" by the Government and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health. I was glad to read that, because
242 children a year are estimated to fall victim to these rings
in institutions
which are complex to investigate and profoundly traumatic".
I welcome that, but what is happening?
Children run away. Where do they run away to? They run to the streets and become homeless, rent boys or young girl prostitutes, because they have known nothing else. Some have committed crimes, such as setting fire to empty houses, to get away from an abuser. They say, "I'd be better off in gaol or a young offenders' establishment than in this place." Regrettably, the House seems to have done little about that culture, except to publish a report.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of people in our society—male and female, at the tender ages of 15, 16 and 17—are exploitable by virtue of deprivation, their background or goodness knows what else? He is seeking to protect such people, and I support that. Where they are exploited by pimps and users and put to work for their benefit, there is little, if anything, that we can do if they are over 16. Under his amendment, we would at least be able to start to protect the vulnerable in our society, for whom no one apparently cares.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend has wide legal experience, and I am glad that he has put his name to my amendment. I take on board everything that he has said.
Utting says that, all too often, staff and employees accepted bullying and sex abuse—they took no notice of it. There was a restraint on whistleblowing, and telling the boss, or a council, or objecting to what was going on was frowned on. Utting examined an unpublished Department of Health report which considered 44 residential homes and 50 separate cases. Abuse was endemic among those in


a position of particular responsibility, authority and trust",
often managers of homes who had
been in post at least 5 years.
The report says that abuse was not opportunistic, and
victims were 'groomed' and 'counselled'
over a long time. When they reached an age at which they could defend themselves, they were put on one side, and another generation came through. For example, Roger Saint, the paedophile, was allowed to foster children over 13 years, even though social workers in his area knew that he had previous convictions. Utting said that some people were experts in convincing parents and evading justice—there was a worrying acceptance by staff and managers.
Another case involved John Allen, of Bryn Alyn private children's home. Some of my hon. Friends said, "Prosecute and go to law.". That happened—cases were taken to a tribunal and then to law, and 2,500 witnesses and 500 separate allegations were involved. After all that, the result was six convictions. The report says that Frank Beck, the head of an establishment in Leicestershire who is now serving life imprisonment, inspired physical and moral fear among staff as well as children. Ralph Morris, who is serving 12 years, was investigated three times and evaded the law.
We have recently taken great steps by introducing a paedophile register, and 110,000 people who have convictions are on it. Utting says, however, that probably as many child abusers have never had a conviction, are not on the register, and are carrying on their activities. Abuse in a private school or when a council is responsible for children makes the headlines, which is embarrassing and a scandal, so local people or parents protest loud and long. When schools or councils find that abuse is taking place, they tend to sack the person involved to get rid of him, so he moves on and carries on as normal.

Mr. Richard Burden: I am following what my hon. Friend says with care. I am sure that the House is unanimous on the need to take seriously the abuse of young people. Am I not right in thinking that my hon. Friend's amendments would mean that, if a young person was abused by an older person short of intercourse, but certainly against that young person's will, he would not be protected by the amendments? However, if a young person aged 17 had consenting sex with another young person aged 16, he would be criminalised under the amendments. Is not my hon. Friend trying to hit the wrong target?

Mr. Ashton: The definition refers to authority. I am not presenting a Bill; it is not a Second Reading—it is an amendment. These matters have to be argued in a court of law. We have to define "trust", "influence" and so on—and eventually the courts will do that. In 99 per cent. of cases involving foster parents and stepfathers, for example, the question answers itself.
I have referred to the fact that there are 110,000 names on the paedophile register. Utting was critical when he said that the consequence of that sort of abuse is that the man is simply dismissed, and he moves elsewhere. What about checking applicants for jobs? With today's technology, if I were to hand over my credit card to someone, he could find out my credit rating within two

minutes and then decide whether to give me a loan or allow me credit. However, as Utting said, in many cases it took local police authorities weeks or even months to check job applicants for a criminal background. By that time, they had been given jobs and it was difficult to get rid of them. Utting said that most sex offenders abuse children for many years before they are caught.
It is not just a question of sacking people—it is far worse. Often, councils are scared of having to pay out a great deal in damages—criminal injuries compensation. One thing that I am proud of, in my small way, is that about eight years ago, when I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, we held an inquiry into criminal injuries compensation. We looked at different cases and questioned officials.
A man was in prison for having sodomised his wife and stepson, and he had been beaten up by the other prisoners. He put in a claim for criminal injuries and was refused. I asked the officials, "Who put in a claim for criminal injuries on behalf of the stepson?" There was a deadly silence—the answer was nobody. Until then, no one had ever applied for criminal injuries compensation for the children who had been abused, but they soon started after we published our Select Committee report.
The Municipal Mutual Insurance Company has expressed almost terror at what it would cost if all the cases resulted in compensation. I understand that councils have been told, "Don't publicise these cases, or we will have to pay severe damages because you are supposed to look after these children." There has been a culture of hushing things up.
It is obvious that, in such cases, there must be some legal deterrent. It can no longer be, "Don't say anything; keep quiet; we have sacked the man and we hope it will not happen again." I understand that there is a disqualifications regulation for the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, but it does not apply to foster parents. Social services has a system to bar or restrict foster parents. It reports dismissals and resignations, and makes about 100 teacher referrals a year to the Department for Education and Employment.
However, the system is not working. The number of prosecutions for indecent assault on children is going down and down. Last year, the figure fell to 12 per cent., partly because children do not make reliable witnesses. Lawyers harangue them in court, so councils have stopped going to court, and the abuse is perpetuated. That cannot continue.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to make some comments on this point when he replies. I shall listen with great interest. If he is thinking about changing the laws on employment, for example, he should remember that that would not cover a stepfather or foster parents.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I wonder just what is my hon. Friend's target. He seems to be arguing for an extension of the list 99 procedure—the list that prevents teachers, even when they have not been prosecuted, from continuing as teachers. As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, there is a similar list for social workers. He is arguing for an extension of that ban on


employment and contact with children, in a position of trust, to youth workers, stepfathers and so on. That is an entirely different issue from the one that we are debating.

Mr. Ashton: I hear what my hon. Friend says. The Utting report dealt with the points that he makes. Some 5 per cent. of convicted paedophiles get through the net. The system is not working.
I had telephone calls this morning from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Employment. They are very good friends of mine. Both of them support the amendments—it is a free vote, so they told me that I could say that in the House tonight. I ask hon. Members to vote for the amendments.
I want to end with a quote from the Childline submission to Utting:
Regimes of abuse prosper because people turn a blind eye. Again and again adults consider it much more serious for a fellow adult to face the ignominy of being found responsible for sexual misconduct, than for a child to be assaulted.
My amendments are not anti-gay; they are not against equalising the age of consent—they are to protect children.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: In supporting new clause 1, to which I have put my name, I am well aware, not least because of the feeling around me, that I am not supported by many of my hon. Friends. It is a most unusual, not to say uncomfortable, experience. I had only just got used to standing up in the House without trembling, but now I remember what it was like.
I am also aware of the concerns of my constituents about the new clause. Some of them are in favour; many are not. My constituents are a good reflection of opinion throughout the country—many people support reducing the age of consent, but many others do not. I have consulted medical opinion of all sorts and come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. Medical opinion is varied; it is not decisive—just as public opinion is not decisive.
Of late, there has been much emphasis on opinion polls and focus groups, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it is sometimes necessary to do not that which makes one popular, but that which is right. That is why I, instead of being popular this evening, am supporting the new clause.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am happy to ask this question of a colleague who is also a woman Member. Am I not correct in saying that a homosexual act is unnatural and that if the Lord Almighty had meant men to commit sodomy with other men, their bodies would have been built differently? Have not the activities of the homosexual community been one of the main sources of both AIDS and hepatitis?

Mrs. Laing: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is not for us to interpret one way or another what the Lord God Almighty intended.

Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend a Christian?

Mrs. Laing: Although that is not relevant to the new clause and the hon. Gentleman has no right to ask such a

question, I shall answer by saying that I most certainly am a Christian and it is not for me to question what the Lord God Almighty has or has not done.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Laing: No, I have already given way.
I have explained why I support the new clause. Its effect is not to challenge the Christian teaching of the Church—I would never support any measure that did—nor is it to challenge family life based on Christian marriage and traditional moral principles as the norm in our country and the building block of our society. The new clause does not challenge that in any way whatever.
I have three main reasons for supporting the new clause. First, I believe in equality. Having said that, I do not believe that all people are equal. They are not: every person is different in some way from every other person. The equality that the new clause addresses is equality before the law, and I believe that everyone should be equal before the criminal law. I stress that I am referring specifically and precisely to the criminal law. If new clause 1 becomes part of the Bill, there is no automatic or necessary implication for the treatment of gay people under the civil law with regard to marriage, pension rights or any other such rights. That is not what we are discussing, it is not the matter before us, and it has no relevance to this debate; we are talking about equality before the criminal law.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is a very courageous lady, but does she not understand that many of those outside the House who support this measure see it as a first step towards treating such life styles equally in every respect, including pension rights?

8 pm

Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He may be right about some minority groups, but they certainly do not have my support. He may be right, but that is not the point that we are debating.
My second reason for supporting new clause 1 is my concern that young people should be protected. I respect the views of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), which were eloquently expressed. I do not agree with him on every point, but I respect his general view of the matter.
I entirely agree with the intention of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who gave a good explanation of his proposal. He is absolutely right to say that, if an adult person has a duty of care towards a young person, there should be no sexual relationship of any sort between them. No harm would be done to the intention of new clause 1 if the hon. Gentleman's amendments to it were accepted. My only doubt is that I am not certain that his amendments, as drafted, would accomplish what he seeks to achieve. However, I agree in principle with the points that he made, which do not contradict those that I am making.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has just said, does she agree that


every adult has a duty of care towards children? Does not that have implications for how we should change, or perhaps not change, the law?

Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is true that every adult has a duty of care towards children, but the law recognises degrees of duty of care. That is a matter of fact in law. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw spoke about particular duties of care, with which I agree. I consider that the amendments would not negate the intention of new clause 1.
It is extremely important to protect young people. It is incredible that some people argue that young boys have to be protected whereas young girls do not. That is nonsense: it does not make sense. Young girls have to learn how to cope with predatory men. Perhaps it is frivolous of me to say this, but it is not only young girls who have to cope with predatory men-—[Laughter.] The reaction of hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches shows that they appreciate that this problem has been faced by half the human race since the beginning of time.
The argument that boys must be protected more than girls is unsustainable. Do boys' parents not warn them of the ways of the world, as girls' parents do? I can tell from the reaction of hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches that I am right in assuming that my mother is not the only wise lady in the world: there must be other wise mothers who give advice both to their sons and to their daughters. It is nonsense to say that there cannot be equality between 16-year-old boys and 16-year-old girls.
Young people need protection, but they are not protected by being turned into criminals. It is that point, more than any other, that we must address this evening. We do not protect young boys or girls by turning them into criminals. If we are to consider this matter properly, we must distinguish between what is legal or illegal under the law and what is encouraged and discouraged by society.
Nothing that is proposed in new clause 1 in any way encourages physical sexual activity among young people before they are sufficiently mature.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is disagreeing with me from a sedentary position. Nothing in the new clause encourages young people to become involved in sexual activity before they are sufficiently mature to do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says that I live in a sheltered world.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: No, I said that my hon. Friend is living in a strange world.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I want to discourage sedentary comments from either side of the House.

Mrs. Laing: I can assure all hon. Members that I live in neither a strange nor a sheltered world: I spend my days in the House of Commons. [Laughter.] We do not help and guide young people in their personal relationships by applying the criminal law.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I very much admire my hon. Friend's courage in taking this unpopular stance with which I disagree. Having listened very carefully to everything that she has said, I infer that the

argument that she is deploying is an argument against ages of consent in general. The purpose of an age of consent is not to criminalise the children who have sex when they have not reached that age of consent; it is to protect the children below that age by criminalising the adults who have sex with them. Does she not recognise that the history of the age of consent for heterosexual sex has been that, as society has evolved and become more civilised, the age—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I also want to discourage long interventions.

Mrs. Laing: I entirely take the point that my hon. Friend has eloquently made, and I do not disagree with him. I believe that what he was about to say was that the age of consent has changed as society has changed.

Dr. Lewis: It has risen.

Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend says that it has risen, but it has not necessarily risen. I have to tell him that the age of consent in Scotland was always different from that in England, for example. That is why Gretna Green became the place to which people ran away to get married. It is not for me to say that girls born and brought up in Scotland were more mature than girls born and brought up in England—that cannot possibly be true—but these anomalies have existed.
The point of substance that my hon. Friend made, which I am very pleased to address, is that there has to be an age of consent. He is wrong in supposing that I am arguing for no age of consent at all. I am arguing for an equal age of consent, but it is possible that that age of consent could be 16, 18, 21 or anywhere in between.
It is also extremely important that Parliament should not make laws that are unenforceable. If, at the end of the 20th century, where we now find ourselves, we were to try to equalise the age of consent at 18, we would be making a law that was unenforceable, and a law that is unenforceable is bad law. It is not for this Parliament to make bad law. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point, but it only strengthens my argument that the age of consent should be equal for all people and should be 16.
As I was saying before that last helpful intervention, we do not help and guide young people in their personal relationships by applying the criminal law.
My third reason for supporting the new clause is that I believe, as do most people, that sexuality and sexual behaviour should be a private matter. I have every respect for some of the pressure groups that have been acting on behalf of homosexual people—Stonewall, for example, is measured and reasoned in its campaigns—but with respect I have no sympathy whatsoever for militant groups such as OutRage! that want to publicise the cause of homosexuals at all costs. They do no good to the people they purport to represent, and they do no good to our society as a whole. There should be no need in this day and age for massive marches by gay people through the streets of our main cities, any more than there should be any need for such marches by any other group in society which happens to be in some way different from others.
Let us make the criminal law fair and equal, then let us agree that sexuality and sexual behaviour is and should remain a private matter. Let it remain private, and let


people who are gay get on with their lives in private and in peace and without making such a fuss about it—that is, if we decide this evening to bring equality to the criminal law in the way in which gay people are treated. Once that has been achieved, there is no reason for the fuss that is often made to go on. Let all the publicity-seeking pressure groups accept that equality will have been achieved, and let them leave the rest of society in peace.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), last Thursday I celebrated the 28th anniversary of my election to the House of Commons. This is my eighth Parliament and I am proud to be a Member of Parliament but, looking at the House, I sometimes think that the only thing worse than having this House is not having this House.
We in this Chamber sometimes congratulate ourselves on our record of social reform, but we have little right to do so. I listened to the admirable and eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). There was one part of what she said with which I disagreed—when she said that, if the House passes the new clause that she has proposed it will be a brave step. It will not be a brave step at all; it will be a belated step, a reluctant step and a step that should have been taken in equity and fairness and decency long ago.
We in this House have witnessed debates in which social reform has been slow, reluctant and belated and in which, again and again, disingenuous arguments have been trumped up to prevent or delay the passage of what in equity should be obvious.
I listened to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire talking about paedophiles preying on young people. Paedophiles prey on young people today under the present state of the law, with an age of consent of 18. They preyed on them when there was an age of consent of 21, and they preyed on them when male homosexual acts were completely illegal. The hon. Gentleman talked about the material which has no doubt been sent to all of us by the Terrence Higgins Trust, describing homosexual acts between men that are illegal before the age of 18. These things are taking place now. It is not as though some terrible door is being opened through which all kind of horrors will rush. Hon. Members have been talking about the situation today.
I have listened to many arguments in many debates in which people tried to hold up reforms that ought not to have been necessary because the restrictive legislation should never have existed. For centuries, the House maintained the denial of rights for the majority by the minority—for example, the denial of rights for women. The majority has always denied the rights of minorities. This House only relatively recently abandoned its denial of membership to Catholics, Jews and atheists. This House has persistently entrenched racial discrimination, and, on the issue before us now, it has a miserable record. A majority, using this House, has sought to impose its sexual orientation on those with a different sexual orientation.
Whenever this subject comes up, new arguments are laboriously dug up to justify the repression of a minority by the majority. The latest argument—the hon. Member

for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) deployed it this evening—is AIDS. When homosexual acts between consenting males were made illegal, AIDS did not exist, but they were nevertheless made a criminal offence.
When the Abse Bill—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred—was considered by the House 30 years ago, the age of decriminalisation was set at 21. Although AIDS did not exist then, other arguments were made to oppose that Bill.
Four years ago, when the age of consent was lowered to 18, AIDS was part of the sexual scene, but no great plague of AIDS has broken out among 18 to 24-year-olds since that change in the law. Heaven knows, if it had, we would have heard of it already, both in press articles and in the speech of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole point about AIDS is that it takes years to reveal itself? It is unlikely that he would see very quickly the effect of AIDS on someone who has contracted it since the younger age of consent was established.

Mr. Kaufman: That is exactly the type of bogus nonsense that one hears constantly on these matters.
I have two further comments on the argument about AIDS. First, the best way of controlling AIDS among people involving themselves in male homosexual acts is to ensure that there is an age of consent that allows people to gain access to information, and enables them without fear of criminality to seek medical advice and medical help. Allowing such access will be one of the extremely desirable by-products of passing new clause 1.
Secondly—I go further—it is a very great myth indeed to imply that AIDS arises only through homosexual contacts. The great wave of AIDS that passed over the planet started in east and central Africa because of heterosexual intercourse. It is therefore a slander on people involved in homosexual sex to say that they and only they will propagate or are subject to AIDS.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No; many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
Nor—although I understand the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—is it accurate to say that lowering the age of consent will create greater opportunities for paedophilia. Paedophilia has existed whatever the law on age of consent for males or females, and I fear that it will continue to do so even when we have passed new clause 1—as I hope we shall today.
If new clause 1 is passed, it will decriminalise only consenting sexual acts between males that are legal between males and females.
Opponents of new clause 1 assign prurience to the homosexual act. Whenever we debate such matters, words such as "sodomy" and "buggery" are used to make ugly such sexual acts, but it is hon. Members who are being prurient by their action. In the House, whenever we discuss sex of that kind and within that context, those who are seeking to maintain oppression and repression of a minority see only the carnality of the sexual act. They


regard such sexual acts as acts of carnality, not as acts of people participating in an act of love according to their sexual nature.
The great lyricist and composer Stephen Sondheim wrote a musical called "Passion" about the repressed passion of a woman for a man. In it, the woman speaks in her mind a line to the man, saying
Loving you is not a choice".
Loving is not a choice. People do not choose their sexual nature; they are endowed with their sexual nature. Opponents of the new clause are saying that of all the billions of creatures on the face of this planet, the only ones to be banned from expressing that love according to their nature are homosexual males aged 16 and 17 and those who love them.
Today, the new clause will undoubtedly be passed—I shall certainly be voting for it. When it is passed, it will be a moment of achievement in which we should take satisfaction. However, when we pass it, the House should not be smug or congratulate itself. Although the new clause will be a belated act of reparation, many more injustices will remain to be put right.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats have a clear policy agenda that seeks to promote fairness for all people before the law. Our agenda has led us to debate at our party conferences the issue that the House is debating today, and to come down clearly in favour of equalisation of the age of consent, as proposed in new clause 1. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who spoke very well. Her speech would have gone down very well with many people in my own party. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) for some of her measured comments on the legal nature of the issue.
As with the other parties, we shall be treating the matter as a free-vote issue. Although I speak as an individual Member on the issue, I am confident that many of my colleagues will agree with the views that I express.
The debate has frequently been examined in terms of politicians sending out a message to the people of the United Kingdom. On the one hand, we are urged to send the message that heterosexuality is the norm, and that the law should be used somehow to discourage homosexuality. Conversely, we are asked to send out a message of equality, saying that the law must be changed to make it clear that we are not discriminatory. Tonight I should like to leave behind the politics of messages, and instead to focus on the proper relationship between the state and 16 and 17-year-old citizens of the United Kingdom.
We have two clear priorities to balance in setting an age of consent for sexual activity. The first is the duty of the state to offer protection to those who are being abused sexually. We must have a legal remedy available for those suffer from unwelcome or inappropriate sexual attention. The second priority is the right of any individual citizen to express his or her sexuality in a consensual way without undue interference from the state.
I do not believe that it is my job as a Member to tell people what they can or cannot freely do in their bedroom, any more than I would be happy for any other hon. Member to come into my bedroom to try to tell me what I should do in my sex life.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I am sure that I shall regret it.

Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sure that he is correct. When he talks about the rights of citizens, will he not just remind himself that we are talking not about citizens or adults but about children of 16 and 17?

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman reminds of a point that I had planned on making later in my speech—that we are talking about citizens who are able to go out and get a job, leave school, get married and pay taxes. Those are the citizens we are talking about.
I do not believe that the current law works well in ensuring that the state performs its duty of protection. Indeed, current law may have the reverse effect—of making young people more vulnerable. The vital fact to remember is that, currently, if a 16 or 17-year-old has homosexual relations, that 16 or 17-year-old is himself committing an offence. In such relationships, the law does not nicely discriminate and prosecute only older people. Two 17-year-olds together would still be guilty of an offence.
Opponents of new clause 1 raise two principal concerns about young men in such situations. The first is the notion that the young man may be experimenting, and may not have settled his sexuality. Arguments have been advanced to the contrary. Moreover, even in situations in which a young man is deemed to be experimenting, I cannot think of anything worse for the law to do than to deny that young man the ability to seek the advice and guidance he needs because he is aware that he has committed a sexual offence for which he may be prosecuted.
The second concern is that the relationship may be an abusive one, typically described as one with an older man. The facts from surveys show that the vast majority of such relationships—like any other relationship—are between people of nearly the same age. However, even if an older man is involved, I cannot think of anything stronger that we could put in the hands of an abuser than the ability to tell his victim, "Don't go to the law, or you'll be prosecuted." I cannot think of anything that would make abuse more likely than providing such a tool to any individual who chose to be abusive. A change in the law is essential.

Mr. Butterfill: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example in which the younger person in such a relationship has been prosecuted?

Mr. Allan: I was talking about the fear of prosecution, rather than what may happen later. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the law as drafted states that such a young man has committed an offence. That fear of prosecution can affect young men and ruin their lives.


A change in the law is essential if we are to free young men of 16 and 17 to seek any advice they may need to cope with the sexuality.
If it could sensibly be argued that setting the age at 18 would ensure that no 16 or 17-year-old would ever had sex, there might be some purpose in doing so, but I can remember being that age not so long ago, and I can honestly say that I never consulted lawyers before exploring my sexuality—not that I could have afforded them. I do not believe that the vast majority of young people consider the law before exploring their sexuality. They will go ahead irrespective. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) strongly advocated not bringing in laws that did not command the respect of the majority of the public.
8.30 pm
In respect of the rights of individuals to carry out their private business free of state interference—a fundamental Liberal issue—there is a strong case for change. The key decision as to the age at which we each believe that people can be responsible for their own sexual behaviour is a personal one. My view is that the age is properly set at 16. As I said, it equates with the age at which one can leave school, pay tax and marry.

Mr. Swayne: But not smoke.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Of course one can smoke at 16. That is not to say that it is advisable to start having sexual relations at 16, but simply that one should not be prosecuted for it.
There is often confusion that lowering the age at which it is legal somehow makes it compulsory to have sex at 16. That is clearly not the case. I would certainly not advise starting so early, any more than I would advise anyone to leave school or get married at 16. Exactly the same principles apply. However, I do not believe that the state should drag those who choose to do so through the courts and face them with a possible gaol sentence. We must remember that, when we set the age of consent, we are not making sex compulsory after that age; we are saying simply that the state will no longer prosecute people for doing so.
We should set the line of responsibility clearly, and then do all we can to support individuals in taking that responsibility. The current confused age of consent is unhelpful in that respect. It is far more straightforward to tell teenagers that they are wholly responsible for their sexual behaviour at 16 and then help them to prepare for it, rather than saying that only pure heterosexuals have that responsibility.
There is an intellectually coherent argument for having a general age of consent above 16 if one believes that 16-year-olds in general cannot handle the responsibility. It is much harder to argue that a 16-year-old male is sufficiently mature for sex with a partner of one sex, but not with a partner of the other. My experiences of getting to know the opposite sex raised complex issues that made it more rather than less difficult to handle a relationship.
The state can do only so much to protect those over 16 from acts in which they choose to participate and to which they consent. Some of those acts they will regret,

and some may turn out to be important opportunities, just as we all make choices that turn out for better or for worse. However, the law should be reviewed for those over 16 but still of a young age.
I agree with some of the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), particularly in respect of those in care. I am not convinced that the amendments are worded correctly, and I have expressed to the Minister of State my concern about girls of 16 and 17 who are exploited by pimps. I hope that the Government will let us know their thinking in respect of protecting those over 16 who are still fairly young. I hope that the amendments will be taken seriously, and that we will get a substantive reply.
The rights of 16-year-olds to define their sexuality bring responsibilities, and 16-year-olds still have a great deal to learn, whatever their sexuality. We should ensure that they are fully aware of those responsibilities, by providing a comprehensive programme of education before they reach the age of responsibility.
I intend to vote for new clause 1 tonight to ensure that we have a legal code that is clear and rational. For the first time, 16-year-old citizens will be absolutely clear that they are responsible for their own sexual behaviour, without the prospect of the state seeking to prosecute them for certain types of behaviour that they find are right for them. We should do all we can to help young people to exercise their rights responsibly, but we should not seek to constrain them or to shoulder too much of their responsibility, especially when that involves threatening them with prison for acts that they find natural. I urge the House to support new clause 1.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is a privilege for me to participate in tonight's debate. I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parties who spoke in support of new clause 1, particularly the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). I do not know whether I will do her popularity among her hon. Friends any good by paying tribute to her very good and witty speech.
I also pay tribute to Edwina Currie, the former Member for Derbyshire, South, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). Above all, I pay tribute to the thousands of people who over the years have lobbied for this change. They have done so because they believe in human rights, equal opportunities and building a decent society. In particular, I reiterate the words of other hon. Members tonight in praising the work of Stonewall, which was launched 10 years ago and has done so much to bring about tonight's vote under the inspired leadership of its director, Angela Mason.
In the debate in the House in 1994, perhaps the most powerful speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then shadow Home Secretary. He said:
the issue … is not at what age we wish young people to have sex. It is whether the criminal law should discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual sex. It is therefore not an issue of age, but of equality. By supporting equality, no one is advocating or urging gay sex at 16 any more than those who would maintain the age of consent for heterosexual sex advocate that girls or boys of 16 should have sex. It is simply a question of whether there are grounds for discrimination.
At present, the law discriminates".


Later in his speech, my right hon. Friend said:
it is wrong to treat a man as inferior because his sexuality is different.
A society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality. That is the moral case for change tonight. It is our chance to welcome people—I do not care whether there are 50,000, 500,000 or 5 million; it matters not a damn—into full membership of our society on equal terms. It is our chance to do good, and we should take it."—[Official Report, 21 February 1994; Vol.238, c.98-101.]
The issue strikes at the heart of the sort of society that we want to build. Since last year's general election, the culture of the House has changed. We have a record number of women Members; we have more relatively young people in Parliament, and we now have six openly lesbian or gay Members. We have come a very long way in the four years since the issue was last debated.
In 1984, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) stood up in Rugby and made a very brave speech in a politically different moral climate, in which he announced that he was gay, and became the first hon. Member openly to acknowledge his sexuality. I was 17 at the time, and I vividly recall the positive impact that his speech had on me. It challenged the conception that being gay is something to be ashamed of, to feel guilty about and to hide. Attitudes have changed a lot in the 13½ years since my right hon. Friend made that speech, and he has played no small part in bringing about that change.
As the law stands, discrimination is entrenched in statute. Young gay men often face bullying, verbal abuse and physical attack, whether at school or in the local community. They often feel isolated and guilty about their sexuality. The law should protect the young and the vulnerable. Instead, the law criminalises for 16 and 17-year-old gay men behaviour that would be legal if they were heterosexual.
There has been much lobbying on both sides of the debate. I have received letters from people with a sincerely held conviction that the change should not happen. I respect those opinions, and have responded respectfully. Unfortunately, like other hon. Members, I have also received some obnoxious and offensive lobbying, including one representation arguing against the change because young gay men are more likely to attempt or commit suicide. The argument, as I understand it, is that, if we discourage or criminalise gay sexuality, we shall reduce the rate of attempted or actual suicide.
Surely the reality is the opposite. Some young gay men attempt to take their lives—successfully in some tragic cases—precisely because of the prejudice, the isolation, the bullying and the discrimination. The best way to tackle that is to foster an open, tolerant and pluralistic society. That is the message that the House will send if we pass the new clause.

Mr. Julian Brazier: On that point, has the hon. Gentleman heard from the school of the science of acting? About 15 of its students and former students, all former homosexuals, testify how they left such feelings behind them when they chose to abandon homosexual practices. Many of them are now married.

Mr. Twigg: I have heard about that. We should not make laws for such exceptional cases. Many other well respected medical and education bodies referred to by other hon. Members support the new clause.
I welcome the Home Office's decision to review sexual offences laws, and the Government's decision to review child protection procedures. I am sure that we all want laws that protect those who cannot protect themselves. The laws must be workable, and should not discriminate. That is why we have an age of consent, and why there is no support in the House for lowering it below 16. We have proposed an equal age of consent at 16.
In the review of sexual offences legislation, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider two problems that will still exist even if the new clause is carried. First, the penalties for age of consent offences will continue to be different for gay couples from those for heterosexuals. Secondly, under-age gay men will continue to be criminalised, whereas under-age girls are not.
The point of the age of consent, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, is to protect those under that age. The criminal should be the one over 16, not the one under 16. Making the younger partner a criminal may discourage some young people from reporting acts of abuse, as other hon. Members have said. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those points.
This debate is about human rights. Prejudice and discrimination scar not only those who face it, but our entire society. Some have claimed in the past couple of days that the new clause will send out the wrong message. Far from it; the new clause will send out a positive, unequivocal and tolerant message. It is a positive message to young people that our inclusive society includes all young people. It is an unequivocal message to the school bully that they are the criminal, not the young people who are being bullied simply for being different. Above all, it is a message of tolerance.
I am proud to have played my small part in supporting the new clause. I am proud of the cross-party support for it, including all three main party leaders. I am proud that tonight the House can put itself on the side of decency, openness and justice.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall briefly give my personal view.
I hope that I shall be acquitted of the charge of being antagonistic to the homosexual community. As Secretary of State for Health, it fell to me to take the first steps in the battle against AIDS. That is not an exclusively homosexual issue, although some people continue wrongly to maintain that it is. However, it profoundly concerns the gay community. I had the opportunity to work with a range of gay organisations and gay people.
Some say that those who surrounded the House of Commons in 1994, the last time we debated the issue, were typical of the gay community. That is not my experience. I endorse the praise that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) gave to organisations such as the National Aids Trust. We cannot judge all the spectators in Marseilles by the activities of the minority. I need no persuasion that the rights of gay people must be protected, and that that is a legitimate concern of the House.
Equally, I am strongly in favour of family life. The best remembered phrase of my parliamentary career concerns the importance of the family and my intention to return to it. I shall continue to advocate the importance of the family, and my belief that it must continue to be at the centre of national life.
In 1994, I voted to reduce the age of consent from 21 to 18, because I believed that the law was out of date and that it was difficult to maintain, with the age of majority at 18, that people should be subjected to criminal prosecution for a further three years. I do not resile from that decision.
However, I do not regard the case for a further reduction from 18 to 16 after such a short time as self-evident, as some have argued, even though I am sceptical about using the criminal law to support a particular attitude—I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth on that. We should recognise the limits of the criminal law in promoting values, and how the public will view our efforts to use it in that way.
The public recognise the right of Parliament to pass laws to punish the guilty for clear crimes such as murder, robbery or burglary. They are more cautious about allowing us to intervene in the private lives of individuals. In the main, they believe that what consenting people do in private is usually a matter for them, and should not be a subject of criminal law and all that goes with it.
When I was dealing with the AIDS issue, I received a great deal of advice. Religious leaders, newspaper leader writers and Members of Parliament all had their views. One of the most popular messages was that I should concentrate less on seeking to prevent the spread of AIDS by health education, and preach a more moral message. In particular, I was told to tell people—by which advisers usually meant gay people—to desist from the life that they were living.
I tried to put the view that a loving relationship was the right way for someone to conduct their life. However, I never believed that that would be enough. My experience on the issue has convinced me that the public will listen to and take the best medical advice available—preferably from the chief medical officer, or even from the Secretary of State for Health. They will not necessarily accept advice so readily when politicians give the impression that they are trying to tell the public how to run their own personal lives. Frankly, given some of the situations that I have seen in my 28 years in the House of Commons, the public's scepticism on that is well justified—sometimes spectacularly well justified.
None of this is an argument against seeking to set an example or trying to do good, but it is an argument against regarding the criminal law as a way of showing the general view of the behaviour of a group of people of whom at least some of the nation do not approve. That does not seem to me to be the right test as far as the criminal law is concerned.
What is the proper matter for the criminal law? I would suggest that that comes when the actions of an individual or individuals violate the rights, lives and dignity of others. That was the issue that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw rightly addressed, and it is covered by his amendments. When the rights of young people are violated, that clearly must be a matter not only for the criminal law, but of deep concern for the House of Commons—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) referred.
I understand the argument for a further reduction, but we are dealing with a criminal offence—an argument made strongly and with enormous eloquence and power by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). We are dealing with prosecutions and everything that flows from that. No one wishes to retain a criminal sanction unless it is necessary.
I am less persuaded by the argument of the British Medical Association on access to medical advice on, for example, AIDS—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, among others. We fought a much bigger battle in terms of drug users and clean needles. The fact that drug use was illegal did not prevent advice from being given. If, in the 1980s, we managed to address a message to every householder in the country on the danger of AIDS and the medical advice that was available, I do not think that it is beyond the wit of man to address a similar, but much more limited, message to young people generally.

Ann Keen: In relation to AIDS advice and the right hon. Gentleman's reference to young people coming forward for advice on drug abuse, is he aware that the young men we are talking about fear so much that they will be branded as criminals that they do not come forward to anyone? A large number of people do not come forward because they fear prosecution, and prosecutions do take place—such as recently in Bolton, where a 17-year-old young man was prosecuted.

Sir Norman Fowler: My point is that that matter can be dealt with in other ways. Drug use is illegal, but that has not prevented us from putting out messages to people who use drugs to tell them that medical advice—franldy, much more medical advice—is available to them. I understand the hon. Lady's argument, but it is not convincing.
Nor do I find the argument on the standardisation of ages between heterosexual and homosexual sex to be remotely the end of the debate. It goes beyond that. The crucial argument surely is that the House must be convinced that, if it takes this action, a group of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 are not put at risk. That may be an inconvenient argument, and it may not fit in with people's views on standardisation. However, the protection of young people must remain a proper and paramount concern of the House of Commons.
In that respect, I have great sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, which refer to both sexes—as they should. We are concerned with abuse by an older person who is in a position of authority, influence or trust. In many ways, the most important service that the hon. Gentleman has done is to refer the House to the report carried out by Sir William Utting and his colleagues for the Department of Health—not 30 or 40 years ago, but between 1996 and 1997.
Bill Utting was the head of the social services inspectorate at the Department of Health and Social Security when I was Secretary of State, and I have the highest possible opinion of his judgment in these matters—I would not necessarily say that about everyone with whom I served in the DHSS. He is quite outstanding. In reference to the risk posed by abusers, he said:
Persistent sexual abusers are a scourge of childhood. Their numbers are difficult to estimate but each one who adopts a lifetime career will amass hundreds of victims. They inflict unspeakable


psychological and physical harm. Some of their victims will become abusers. Their success depends on their ability to ingratiate themselves with adults and children. They are largely but not exclusively men. They establish themselves as trusted friends, colleagues or employees. Exposure may be a matter of chance, often after many years of abuse.

Mr. Ashton: Some weeks ago, I wrote to Sir William Utting and asked if he would support my amendments. He said that he would—he was very much in favour of them.

Sir Norman Fowler: I read what the hon. Gentleman wrote about that in his letter to all colleagues. I am influenced—the House needs to judge whether I am over-influenced—by that, and by other cases. I shall give one example—the case of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled "Bishop of Medway", who was convicted in the 1970s of offences against young people. I raised his case in the House of Commons in 1975. Two months ago, in 1998, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. In other words, he had been pursuing a career of abuse, year after year.
No one can seriously doubt the problem that abusers pose to young people, and here we come up against one of the unsatisfactory features of the way in which we are proceeding tonight. We are debating an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill. Obviously, the amendment is within the scope of the Bill—otherwise, we would not be debating it. Whether it is in the spirit of the Bill is an entirely different matter. The way we are proceeding means that the measure is not being given the consideration it might otherwise have had.
That was precisely the argument used by the Home Secretary a couple of hours ago against a new clause—with which he agreed in principle—tabled by the Opposition. Had new clause 1 been tabled at Second Reading, it could have been considered in Committee, and amendments could have been tabled to explore all the implications. Frankly, we are being presented with a proposal on a more or less take-it-or-leave-it basis, at the last stage of the consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons. That certainly allows the House to vote on the issue, but whether it is the best way in which to make law is another matter.
It was a bit rich for the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who tabled new clause 1, to say on the BBC this morning that the trouble with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was that they were a bit rushed. I think that the whole operation has been rushed from beginning to end—

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: (Exeter): Rushed?

Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, rushed. The hon. Gentleman should consider the problems that would arise if we always legislated in this way. Those of us who have serious questions to ask find this way of doing business objectionable—if he does not understand that, he does not understand the process of Parliament, let alone what we are talking about.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: (Witney): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

9 pm

Sir Norman Fowler: May I continue?
On the basis of the evidence that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has put before the House, I support the amendments that he has tabled. The previous Government established the Utting review because of the continuing revelations about widespread abuse of children in children's homes over the preceding 20 years. The Utting committee estimated that about 200,000 of the 12 million children under the age of 18 in England and Wales lived away from their parents' homes for at least 28 days. It set out areas of risk, such as children's homes, foster care, boarding schools and a range of others.
On the basis of the Utting report, I believe that there is a strong case for improving the safeguards for children who live away from home. I have no illusions that that will be easy—we shall not cure the problem simply by passing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, but the House can at least attempt to prevent the problem from getting worse. However, my fear is that, if we were to pass new clause 1, we should present a grave risk for those children who live away from home.
I shall certainly vote for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, but I should add that it is not only people in positions of authority who may be guilty of abuse. Many others may be guilty too, and they will not necessarily be caught by the definition in amendment (a). Such people are predominantly male; they pose an enormous threat to young people in the age group. I believe that those young people, about whom I am most concerned in this debate, need protection. We have heard a great deal about equality, and I respect what I have heard, but we have heard rather too little about how young people's rights will be protected.
We voted to reduce the age of consent from 21 to 18 only four years ago—that was an important step. I am in no doubt about what the result of the vote this evening will be—I have no illusions whatever about that—but I hope that the House does not come to regret passing new clause 1. I believe that it poses such a risk that I shall vote to keep the age of consent at 18.

Mr. Michael: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and all those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—we have seen the House at its best, dealing maturely and responsibly with an issue about which hon. Members have passionate views. It is perhaps slightly worrying that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has made two speeches in one day that have allowed us to hope that discussions between those on the Front Benches can be both constructive and robust.
The package of new clauses and amendments boils down to four issues. First, is it the will of the House to equalise the age of consent? Secondly, how should we increase the protection for 16 and 17-year-olds from an abuse of their position by those who owe them a duty of care? The third proposal is to increase the age of consent if one of the parties is more than 21. The fourth proposal concerns a separate issue—the definition of "in private" for the purposes of homosexual activity.
The first issue—the age of consent—is the main issue for tonight. We promised to give the House an opportunity to decide on a free vote whether we should have an equal age of consent at 16. The new clause has


been tabled by Back Benchers from both sides of the House but, by assisting with the drafting, we have ensured that it provides a real and genuine opportunity. That is why I have added my name to the related amendments Nos. 1 to 5. If the House supports new clause 1, it will be essential for the consequential amendments to be carried, and it will be the Government's policy to ensure that they are. By adding my name to the amendments, I intended to signal that purpose.
This is a subject on which many hon. Members hold strong personal views, and it is right that Parliament should debate it freely. As we regard it as a matter of conscience for individual Members, the Government do not have a formal policy on the issue. However, I must make it clear that I will vote in favour of an equal age of consent, as I did in 1994. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has always made it abundantly clear that his personal view is that equalisation of the age of consent is a matter of basic fairness and equality. On 21 February 1994, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is now Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) who leads the Liberal Democrats, voted for 16 as the age of consent following a debate in which the present Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, gave a seminal speech on the topic. I therefore live in hope of being in a crowded Aye Lobby when the Question is put.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) quoted the Prime Minister in that debate, and I must underline one part of the quotation. My right hon. Friend said:
By supporting equality, no one is advocating or urging gay sex at 16 any more than those who would maintain the age of consent for heterosexual sex advocate that girls or boys of 16 should have sex. It is simply a question whether there are grounds for discrimination."—[Official Report, 21 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 98.]
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield hesitated about whether 16 or 18 should be the age of consent, and said where he came down following his thoughts on the matter. I must point out to him that it is an issue not of age—it is easy to make an age argument one way or the other—but of equality. The law discriminates, and there is no doubt that that causes misery for some people. It is because of that unfairness and inequality that the homosexual age of consent is the subject of a case that is pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
Before anyone suggests that this debate is about Europe taking decisions for us, let me remind the House that the argument is about a breach of a principle contained in a convention to which Governments of both parties have been committed and which was written largely by British lawyers. It is the strength of the Human Rights Bill that the principles of the convention will be written into our law and our citizens will be able to seek redress in our courts rather than having to go to Strasbourg. However, that is not the case at present, so the matter is before the European Court.
The European Commission has already considered the case and found that the differential in the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals breaches the convention right of privacy and the right not to be discriminated against in private life. The Government reached an agreement with the applicant that the case

would not be pursued pending parliamentary consideration of the issue. The tabling by Back Benchers of the new clause provides the opportunity for such consideration.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for the act of buggery, the age of consent is the same for both men and women–18, at the moment—so that does not need to be equalised? I use the word "buggery" not in the pejorative sense that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggests but because it is the legal term incorporated in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).

Mr. Michael: There are a number of complications in the law, to which I will turn in a few moments. It is best if we concentrate on the main point of principle. Advocates of an equal age of consent have made a case persuasively and with eloquence. Significantly, supporters come from a wide variety of parties, and the new clause was moved by a mother whose remarks showed both care for people and concern for principle. Principles frequently clash in this House, as do the interests of different groups. So, I invite all hon. Members to support new clause I because it is right and not because it is in the interests of one group.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said before the election in a speech in the Grand Committee Room on 19 February 1997:
These are not issues for any sectional interest but for the whole of society. They touch on how we treat other people, what responsibility we show to others in return for the rights we all expect for ourselves. The test for any democracy is what freedom the majority allows to those with whom it may disagree, not merely to those with whom it agrees.
The only argument for the discrimination inherent in the differential age of consent is to protect young people from predatory men. The overwhelming evidence is that sexuality is of people's nature: it is not something that is caught or that people are persuaded into.
For those who are confused about their sexuality, there is no evidence that the criminal law helps them to solve their dilemmas. Often it simply drives them away from the information, advice and help that could enable them to make their own choices maturely. Predatory behaviour must be dealt with firmly and quickly. It is a scandal that we have failed to protect our young people from adults—mostly men, sometimes women. The Government have made massive progress in offering the genuine, effective protection that children and vulnerable adults have a right to expect. I am a member of the ministerial group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, on action following the Utting report, to which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers are passionate about the issue and the need for progress.
I hope that the House will get the principle right on new clause 1 and agree to an equal age of consent by a massive and conclusive majority. We need to consider the serious issues aired under the second set of amendments on abuse of trust, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). New clause 8 and amendments Nos. 61 and 62, which deal with girls, are clearly intended to make up a comprehensive package on abuse of trust. The main debate today has focused on


treatment of homosexuals, but my hon. Friend rightly believes that we need to ensure effective protection for boys and girls at the vulnerable ages between 16 and 18.
I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's approach. Boys and girls are already free to marry at those ages, but they can be victims of the unscrupulous, and they may be persuaded or influenced to enter into relationships rather than doing so of their own free will. It is particularly important to protect those who are vulnerable, and those who are in care. I made it clear during the Committee stage of the Bill that the Government intend to provide that protection; there is no difference between us and my hon. Friend on that point. Even before he tabled his amendments, we had acknowledged the need for changes in the law. There are already safeguards in pre-employment checks and professional codes—such as the code that stops teachers entering into relationships with pupils—but they do not cover all cases, and some of them are not strong enough.
Our priority is to protect the vulnerable and to reinforce the duty of professional care. We are looking carefully at what needs to be done, but we must get it right. I have discussed the issue with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Health, and we have made it a matter of priority. We have set up an interdepartmental working group to identify the additional safeguards needed to prevent those who are unsuitable to do so from working with children. That group will also identify the measures necessary to protect 16 and 17-year-olds who may be vulnerable to abuse by those in positions of trust.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: Some areas of specific concern, such as residential schooling and care, will be considered with extreme care.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: The work will be wide-ranging; will not be limited to one sector—

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: In a moment. I do hate giving way in the middle of a sentence.
The work will be wide-ranging; will not be limited to one sector and will examine existing safeguards in the public, private and voluntary sectors and the need for new measures as part of an integrated approach. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate, let me say that we will consider the issues that he raised, such as the fairness of the law and its effectiveness.

Mr. Gale: The Minister has told the House that he intends to support a clause that many of us feel will weaken the protection available to young people. He has also said that yet another working party is considering the protection of young men and women in institutional care. He has given no indication whether he will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which I most certainly support, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) declined to give way on the subject when she opened the debate.

Will the Minister tell us why he is prepared to support one measure without simultaneously putting the other in place, as is his ministerial responsibility?

Mr. Michael: I wish that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) would listen to the debate instead of trying to interrupt in the middle of sentences. I have tried to make it clear that I believe that new clause 1 is right, and is not about the abuse of positions of trust. I am making it equally clear that serious issues were rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw in his important speech. I am trying to respond to those points effectively.
If, instead of trying to score debating points, the hon. Member for North Thanet looked at the way in which we have dealt with the needs of victims and vulnerable witnesses, he would find that the outstanding piece of work that we published a fortnight ago addressed those issues comprehensively. He should take that as the example of how we wish to deal with the issues, and should realise that the Government deserve more respect from him, rather than his unhelpful interventions.
We expect the group about which I have spoken to make its final recommendations by the end of the year. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government consider the protection of the vulnerable an absolute priority. However, it is important to examine the whole area rather than proceed according to a piecemeal approach. There are human rights issues involved, and questions of definition and scope. We must look carefully before taking action. There are plenty of pieces of law that give the impression of tackling a problem but which fail to do so. There are draconian punishments for those whom we fail to catch; they are pointless in law. We need to do much more to protect and prevent.
I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendments, because they would create a new set of difficulties and anomalies. I refer not to my hon. Friend's intentions or to the broad sweep of his amendments, but to the way in which those amendments would work in practice. First, his amendments to new clause 1 would ensure that, if the abuse of trust was part of a homosexual relationship, not only the abuser but the victim would be committing a criminal offence. That cannot be right: it would increase the power of the abuser and make the abuse much less likely to be reported. It takes us back to the arguments that make the reduction in the age of consent something that is in the interests of young people.
9.15 pm
Secondly, the amendments would not apply in cases where an older woman takes advantage of a younger boy—such things do happen, as I am sure my hon. Friend would concede. Thirdly, the drafting is imprecise and creates other difficulties, which I would be happy to go through with my hon. Friend at greater length than the House would wish me to do here. If we are concerned about those vulnerable to undue influence from those with authority over them, this concern applies potentially as much to marriage as to sexual intercourse.
The essence of the concern is that the consent is not wholly free of influence. For instance, should we make unlawful a marriage between a 16 or 17-year-old and a person in a position of authority, influence or trust? They are major issues, and we should not contemplate taking


[Mr. Michael]
such steps at this late stage in the Bill's progress when there has been no opportunity fully to consider the implications. For instance, the amendments would make it unlawful for a 17-year-old girl to marry her boss. I am sure that that is not what is intended.
I hope that I have made it clear that there are too many problems with my hon. Friend's amendments as they stand, and as they are technically drafted, for them to be accepted tonight. However, I respect both his intentions and his attempt to draft amendments in order to give the House a chance to act.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is gabbling at breakneck speed, and I cannot keep up. I do not know why he is doing that. Why can he not take things much more slowly, so that we can understand what is happening?
The amendments were drawn up at my request by the Clerk of the Committee examining the Crime and Disorder Bill, who is an experienced lawyer. I do not claim that the amendments or proposed new clause 8 are perfect, but they do not have the wide-ranging implications that my hon. Friend claims.
The Minister—and the Secretary of State before him—said that the Crime and Disorder Bill would be back before the House by the end of July and would become law. The Minister now says that the working party will keep trundling along and may produce a report at the end of the year. Perhaps we will debate that and perhaps there will be another Bill.
I have been in the House a long time and have heard Governments say that they will act, only for things to remain in limbo. With respect, the Minister has not replied to my amendments regarding restraint on abuse—although he virtually said that the existing situation is not working. Can we have a date? Will there be a new Bill? When will it be presented? Can we have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a second speech.

Mr. Michael: I think I made it clear—if I did so too quickly, I apologise to my hon. Friend—that I accept the purposes behind his amendments. However, I hope that I have outlined also the damaging complications in this very complicated piece of interrelated legislation. I also made it clear that it is important to have legislation that works. For instance, the Bill deals with issues such as anti-social behaviour and sex offender orders. We spent much time on those issues in opposition so that we could bring before the House considered ways of dealing with them. It should be recognised that, as a result of our putting in that time, and moving quickly as soon as the opportunity arose, the Bill as a whole is a most reforming piece of criminal justice legislation, tackling youth justice and a variety of issues.
Similarly, we have dealt with the needs of victims and vulnerable witnesses. The House has debated that issue frequently over many years. We have got on with the job since coming to power.

Mr. Ashton: Cannot the Lords achieve the same aim in an amendment that could come back to this House?

Mr. Michael: No, I do not believe that there is time to do that properly without placing the whole Bill at risk, including the reform of youth justice, protection for

people through dealing with anti-social behaviour and dealing with some aspects of predatory behaviour through the sex offenders order. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to slow down the process of getting those matters into law.

Mr. Bermingham: No one is trying to sabotage the Bill. We are merely seeking to protect a small group of people from a small group of predators. Is it beyond the wit of the Minister and the Home Office to take that on board?

Mr. Michael: No, of course it is not. That is why we are doing so much on the issue. That is why, for instance, we put sex offender orders in the legislation. That is an aspect of protecting children against the activities of predatory adults.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely this matter could be dealt with in the House of Lords, where there is enough legal expertise for a sensible amendment to emerge and come back to this place.

Mr. Michael: I understand why the hon. Gentleman would wish that. Once he has considered what I have said about the complex effect of the amendments—particularly the fact that they would introduce a new element of inequality to a new clause that seeks to end inequality—I hope that he will accept that they would not achieve what he wants to achieve.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Michael: These issues need to be thought through with great care before we embark on legislation.

Mr. Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Michael: I shall give way for the last time. Many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because it was hellish difficult to get in between two sentences.
If he accepts the logic of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which I also signed, he will find that they provide some protection in respect of hon. Members' concerns. If he feels that, although inadequate in their present form, they should be enacted in an adequate form but that he cannot do that now, he should call on the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Michael: No, because it is the drafting and tabling that relate the two issues. I do not believe that new clause 1 will have the result that the hon. Gentleman thinks it will. It deals with a separate point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is right to say that 16 and 17-year-old boys and girls—he is right to place that joint emphasis—need protection from predatory adults. The two issues are brought together in the debate by the juxtaposition of the amendments. I see them as two separate issues, but I have sought to respond to the debate in respect of both.

Mr. Donald Anderson: (Swansea, East): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Michael: Many hon. Members wish to speak. I said that I had given way for the last time. It is better to get it right than to get it wrong quickly and give the impression of having done something by accepting amendments that would not achieve the ends which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw says he seeks. He raised important issues. I hope that he, and those who agree with him, will accept our assurances about our intention to deal with the issues and will not press the amendment.

Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Michael: I have said already that the intervention that I accepted from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would be the last one. If I were to take further interventions I would be eating into the time of Back-Bench Members who wish to take part in the debate.
I hope that I have said enough, without delaying the House further, to show why the amendment to increase the age of consent where one of the parties is over 21 is wrong and would not succeed in its purpose.
I turn to new clause 4 and the related amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others. New clause 4 and the associated amendments seek to remove one of the two qualifications that now exist to the proposition that consensual homosexual activity involving parties of the age of consent is lawful if done in private. I am sympathetic to the intention behind the new clause and amendments and to the strong feeling on the part of many people that the law in this area is discriminatory. I understand the argument that it is wrong to penalise homosexual activity that takes place between consenting parties of the age of consent in the privacy of the home just because more than two people are present.
It is important, however, that Parliament should recognise that there are differing views and that there are likely to remain concerns about sexual activity in public places, and not only gay activity. There are different approaches to the issue. In the past, Stonewall put forward a set of proposals which would involve repealing the offences of buggery and gross indecency and amending the Public Order Act 1986 to cover harassment, alarm or distress caused, among other things, by indecent behaviour. The Criminal Law Revision Committee, which considered the issue in 1984, came up with different proposals which would involve creating a new offence. That illustrates the need to consider such issues in the round.
There are inequalities, and those inequalities need to be addressed. However, particularly in an area as complex as sexual offences legislation, a problem can rarely be solved by one simple amendment. We need to examine the consequences of making changes and consider whether, by dealing with one problem, we may not be creating others.
I refer again to the fact that I recently announced our intention to review the law relating to sexual offences more generally. There are many anomalies in the existing legislation, which in many respects reflects attitudes and views that are no longer accepted in modern society. The review of this area of legislation is long overdue, but matters are not helped by piecemeal reform such as that proposed by the amendment. There are also technical defects in the amendment.
My response is not intended to deny the importance of the House dealing with these issues but to say that the time is not right. There will be unfinished business after tonight's debate. In an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the urgency of seeing the Bill through all its stages as soon as possible. It contains many proposals that will affect directly the lives of all our constituents who are plagued by crime and disorder in local communities.
The protection of children and vulnerable adults will be at the forefront of the Government's proposals. There will be areas of the law that need review following the decision of principle, but let tonight's decision be a clear and simple one—to agree an equal age of consent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is now less than an hour left for the debate to run, so short speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House will be appreciated.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: (Reigate): It is clear that there is a majority in the House to equalise the age of consent at 16. I agree with the view that, even if one disapproves of homosexual practice, we should ideally not be using the criminal law to make a judgment on it. I subscribe to the liberal position that people should be free to behave as they wish, as long as that does not impact on the freedom of others.
However, it is the duty of the House to have regard to the consequences of the laws we make. It is also our duty to protect the interests of those whose judgment has not fully matured. Even from a liberal perspective—here I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—we hold the interests of children in trust in the House.
I have considered the issue carefully in the light of my instincts and beliefs. I do not believe that the House can pass without qualification the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).
Every responsible body that has considered the issue has acknowledged the need to protect children. I hope that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth will pay attention as I quote the 1957 Wolfenden report, because she gave a totally different interpretation to it. The report states:
While there are some grounds for fixing the age as low as 16, it is obvious that however 'mature' a boy of that age may be as regards physical development or psycho-sexual make-up, and whatever analogies may be drawn from the law relating to offences against young girls, a boy is incapable, at the age of 16, of forming a mature judgment about actions of a kind which might have the effect of setting him apart from the rest of society.
The Wolfenden report concluded that 21 was the right age,
because to fix it at 18 would lay them open to attentions and pressures of an undesirable kind from which the adoption of the later age would help to protect them, and from which they ought, in view of their special vulnerability, to be protected.

Mr. Woodward: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Blunt: If my hon. Friend will wait, I shall address the point that I believe he is about to make.
Society has clearly changed in the past 40 years, but the consideration of protecting vulnerable individuals remains valid. I believe that it is a legitimate judgment to believe that 18 to 21-year-olds are more mature than they were in 1957 and that they are wiser in the ways of the world, having enjoyed the benefits of television and the information age and of more liberal attitudes in society generally. That is why, had I been a Member of Parliament in 1994, I would have supported changing the age of homosexual consent to 18. However, 16 and 17-year-olds still need special consideration.
In 1979, the Home Office policy advisory committee's working party had a minority view that supported the reduction to 16, but with the compromise that a young man of 16 or 17 should be protected by the criminal law from the advances of a man in authority over him. I believe that it is self-evident that an adult over the age of 21 has an authority over 16 and 17-year-olds.
In 1985, the Howard League for Penal Reform took as its base assumption that the individual should be free to regulate his or her sexual conduct in private, provided there is protection for the young or immature from exploitation or undue pressure. It recommended the introduction of a whole new system, which would have ensured legal protection from sexual exploitation for everyone under the age of 18, by creating offences of unlawful indecency and unlawful sexual contact with children under the age of 14, or with young persons under the age of 18 if the age gap between the participants was more than two years.
It is the issue of protecting minors from exploitation by adults that is at the heart of our debate tonight. The principle of an equal age of consent, qualified by the protection of the young from adults, is already enacted in law in respect of sex between adults and children in five European Union countries. Is the House going to pass the new clause without regard for the consequences?

Mr. Woodward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NSPCC, Childline and many other agencies have addressed the issue of child protection? The NSPCC's movement on that issue in the past few years is crucial. It considers it absolutely vital that, if we are effectively to protect children, we need an equal age of consent.

Mr. Blunt: I respect my hon. Friend's point of view and that of the NSPCC, and I shall go on to explain why I support an equal age of consent while also supporting the protection of young boys, aged 16 and 17, from adults over the age of 21. That is the aim of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I hope that, if we have the chance to vote on them, they will commend themselves to the House.
The Utting report, cited by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), combined with accounts from any police vice squad in the country, the experience of the sex industry in Holland and the changes to the gay sex industry here since we changed the law in 1994, show graphically what will happen if the House passes the new clause unchanged.
I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. It deals with the abuse of trust, and covers both boys and girls. It meets any conceivable objections to differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It is, however, both limited and specific. It is self-evidently common sense, and it should command the support of everyone in the House.
The amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham would go further. They would prevent the exploitation of boys of 16 and 17 by men over the age of 21. This is not some new or unique principle. Exactly the same sort of law exists in Austria, where the age of consent is 14 and where it is illegal for a male over the age of 19 to commit homosexual acts with a male between the ages of 14 and 18. I accept that our amendments discriminate, just as Austrian law does, between homosexual and heterosexual practice. We are dealing with different forms of behaviour; I believe it right that our law should discriminate in that limited way between homosexual and heterosexual practice.
Issues to do with marriage, the upbringing of children, and the lack of psychological and sexual equivalence between boys and girls aged 16 and 17, have led me to conclude that my amendments should apply only to homosexual relationships. I concede that it is arguable that they could apply equally to the exploitation of young girls by older men. However, the everyday experience of adolescents, combined with scientific observations, makes it clear that boys of this age are self-evidently less mature, sexually and in judgment, than their female counterparts. While I accept that, in law, we should tolerate people's choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality—nor should we pretend that they are.

Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman perpetuates the myth that being gay is a life style choice. It is no more a life style choice than is his sexual orientation.

Mr. Blunt: I am afraid that I cannot accept that. In our culture, the choice of a homosexual orientation tends to become the dominating influence on a person's life: it defines homosexuals in a way that heterosexuality does not. I am not condemning that choice; I believe that it should be tolerated. I do not, however, believe the two choices to be the same.
It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but I do not intend to run away from the difficult issues.

Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Lady did not give way to me.
My conclusion is that we have a duty to protect boys of 16 and 17 from exploitation by men of 21 and over. To those who say that my amendment will be struck down by the European Court of Human Rights, I would answer: that has not happened to Austria. My amendments also comply with equalising the age of consent. The ECHR will have to draw the line somewhere—unless we go for absolute equivalence, an idea which I reject.
This discrimination is defensible and, at the very least, should be tested. It properly belongs, as the Government have acknowledged, in the margin of appreciation,


recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, allowed to democratic states to legislate in controversial areas. That is why I commend my amendment to the House and ask hon. Members to support it, if it is put to the vote. If it is not accepted, I should not want to be associated with the consequences of accepting new clause 1.
I urge hon. Members to consider the consequences of their actions before they vote. If, like me, they consider that there is a case for homosexuality to be tolerated as equally as possible, but balanced by regard for the consequences, they will support my amendment.

Mr. Stuart Bell: (Middlesbrough): Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not take interventions in the next few minutes so that other hon. Members can speak in the debate.
The views that I put to the House shall be put as a Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church of England and putting forward its views on the matter. I should not want it to be thought, however, that I do not entirely subscribe to those views.

Mr. Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Bell: I said clearly that I would not give way.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that he does not support further lowering of the age of consent for homosexual practice. He believes that that would send a signal that homosexual practice is on a par with, and equal to, heterosexual relationships, a point which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made earlier. The archbishop has made it plain that he recognises that there are valid arguments on both sides, but his view remains that it would not be desirable to send out such a signal.
In a statement this weekend, the House of Bishops made it plain that all who have leadership responsibility in our society, in Church and state, have a particular duty to support young people in their personal development, to protect them from harm and exploitation, and to offer them a vision of what is good. Legislation affecting sexual relationships should therefore offer protection, set an example of what is good, and be rooted in sound moral values.
There is particular need in our culture to support young people. Pressures are at work to legitimise any and every life style, irrespective of any difference of value and quality between them. The Church believes that those pressures should be resisted. The House of Bishops recognises the complexity of the issues facing legislators and the House, but it is concerned that the proposal to lower to 16 the age of consent for homosexual relationships may send wrong messages to young people and to our society as a whole. It is particularly important for it to be understood that actions may be legal without being morally right or socially desirable. I shall refer briefly to that point later.
Although the House of Bishops accepts that there is a debate within in it about the right way forward on this issue—as, indeed, there is in the wider Church—it believes that there is a widespread desire that a broader agenda of moral vision should provide the context for the debate and for the consideration of other social issues. We all need to work for greater stability and flourishing in our personal lives, the building of family life and the deepening of community life.
For those reasons, the majority of the House of Bishops opposes the new clause to lower the age of consent for homosexual relationships. If something is morally wrong, the fact that the House votes to make it legally right does not make it anything other than morally wrong. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to Church and state, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is not in the Chamber, referred to the Utting report. Over the past 30 years, the state has withdrawn from issues of morality.
Like the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and other hon. Members, I voted four years ago for the age of consent to be reduced from 21 to 18. Hon. Members are being asked further to reduce the age of consent to 16. It is my view that soon we shall be asked to vote for a reduction to 14—a point which was touched on by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), among others. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) did not want marches by organisations such as OutRage! In Paris yesterday, 20,000 people marched for civil marriage for homosexual couples and for the legal right to adopt children. This is a further undermining of family life, which has been and will continue to be the basis of our society for years to come.
There must be a line in the moral sand. It is the view of the House of Bishops, so clearly stated, that its position is a reflection of a modern, confident Church which is prepared now to state clearly where it stands on morality and to invite the state to join it in a partnership. That can begin tonight by Members opposing the new clause and by marrying Church and state to follow a different route—one that will help younger generations and those who are still children.

Dr. Evan Harris: (Oxford, West and Abingdon): I want to speak tonight from the perspective of human rights. New clause 1, to which I put my name, and new clause 4 are supported by Members from all political parties. It is important to make clear notes in these debates and not to hold them upside down. I am reminded of what happened in the 1994 debate in the other place, when an elderly bishop said that he did not realise they were talking about 18; he thought it was 81—and even he recognised that that could not be fair.
There is a danger not only of upside-down reading, but of upside-down thinking. The basic starting point in addressing the issue is that there should be equality in law. There need to be overwhelming reasons to move away from equality and non-discrimination.
The sponsors and supporters of new clause 1 are not asking those who oppose it to approve of homosexual acts; they are not even asking them to accept them. All they are asking, as a minimum, is that they are not criminalised and that we do not legislate against the expression of love between people who have reached a fixed sexuality in their lives. It is for that reason that, in determining my vote, I cannot accept the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury or those bishops—and they are split on this issue—who do not want the House to accept new clause 1.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: I will do so later in my speech. Indeed, I would prefer to give way on a point about new clause 4,


on which there has been little debate. I am responding to points made by hon. Members, who have not given way, on new clause 1.
We do not yet live in a theocracy, so we are not bound to take note of a majority view in the House of Bishops, especially when the bishop charged by the Synod with dealing with this matter and tackling the issue of homosexuality for the Church itself, Bishop Harries of Oxford, favours a reduction in the age of consent to 16—for the reasons that we have heard tonight from the supporters of new clause 1.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops are entitled to their view. The proposers of the new clause do not ask them to drop their view based on the Bible. Nor does the fact that adultery is not criminal in this country mean that those who agree with that feel that those of a religious persuasion should drop their prima facie objection to it. Many of us would be concerned about that. The question is whether the criminal code should legislate against these matters, and I believe that it should not.
On the basic premise of moving towards equality and non-discrimination in other matters, I want to speak briefly about medical issues, which have been raised in the debate. I speak as a member of the British Medical Association council and the proposer of a motion at a meeting last year, when it unanimously restated its belief in equality in the age of consent at 16—and in a whole range of other equality issues. The council is joined in that belief by bodies such as the Health Education Council, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other royal colleges. Each established medical body believes, on the review of evidence, that there is no medical reason to oppose an equalisation in the age of consent at 16.
I regret that I must disagree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who spoke so powerfully, but did say that there were medical divisions. On the review of all the evidence, the established medical bodies have come down firmly in favour of equalisation. It is now medically accepted that homosexuality is fixed at an early age and not at an age greater than 16. People such as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) state that that is not the case, but stating that does not make it so. Those who believe that the earth is flat do not make it so by declaring that it is flat.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Brazier: rose—

Dr. Harris: I shall not give way on this point, because I wish to make progress.
The same applies to the journalist in The Daily Telegraph, who, in a flat-earth way, makes certain medical statements as if they were fact when they are not accepted by medical opinion. I was outed in The Daily Telegraph as a doctor who believes in equality, and outed as a liberal, to which I confess without any shame. I am delighted that I have now been named in The Daily Telegraph in a capacity other than that of bridge player.
The other medical question is whether sexuality can be changed by participation in sexual activity. Medical authorities do not accept that, among the multifarious

factors, sexual practice, especially in teenage life, has any effect on sexuality. European countries that have a lower age of consent do not have a higher rate of homosexuality. The medical and psychological evidence supports my case.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—he could be described as the hon. Member for the 19th century—referred to the problem of predation. As has been said, that problem affects young women and girls as much as, if not more than, it affects young boys. There is no evidence to suggest that a greater proportion of those involved in paedophilia are homosexual. The vast majority of paedophile criminals are heterosexuals who exploit young boys as well as young girls.
The issue of AIDS has been raised, particularly by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire.

Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: No, not on this point, because I want to make progress.
The Terrence Higgins Trust did a remarkable amount to reduce the incidence of HIV transmission. Although the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is no longer present, did well in getting across to the wider population the message about the dangers of HIV infection, the Conservative Government can be criticised for not sending enough targeted messages about the dangers affecting homosexuals of all ages. It is not through homosexual acts, but through unsafe sexual practice with someone who is infected, that the virus is transmitted. We must get that message across.
I have worked as a doctor in the field of HIV; people with AIDS have died in my arms. I do not want a return to the years when people were not able to obtain critical information about sexual health because, in seeking such information, they ran the risk of being criminalised. Young people have a right to such information.
From a medical perspective, I entirely share the views of the Minister of State on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate are incompetent. Amendments to criminalise homosexual behaviour between people over 21 and those below the age of 18 would make a legal relationship between a 17-year-old and a 20-year-old suddenly illegal and criminal on the date of the birthday of the older person in the relationship. It would be some birthday present to criminalise a previously non-criminal relationship. Those amendments must be opposed by the majority of hon. Members, who, I believe, want to equalise the age of consent at 16.
I deal now with the subject of new clause 4, which has cross-party support. It has not been advertised widely in advance of this debate. That was deliberate on the part of its proposers, in order to avoid detracting from the main message that should emerge from this debate, which is the equalisation of the age of consent. Although it has been advocated quietly, however, it is a critical new clause.
New clause 4 would delete a gross violation of privacy and a gross violation of the right to freedom from discrimination. It seeks to delete the provision in the Sexual Offences Act 1967 that means that consenting homosexual acts by adults in private can never be private,


no matter how many doors they are locked behind, when more than two people are present—not more than two people participating, but more than two people present. I think that many Conservative Members, and not only those who take a libertarian view in supporting this, believe that an Englishman's house is his castle.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: I will give way in a moment.
Certainly, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) will take that remark literally. I will not press this too much further, but the right hon. Gentleman would not like the Secretary of State coming into his bedroom to see what he was up to as a consenting adult in private; and I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to be there. This is a serious matter that strikes at the heart of the rights of consenting adults in private to do what they wish without the state intervening.

Mr. Leigh: At times, this debate has seemed unreal, not least because of the 13 speeches given, only three have opposed the new clause. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that people outside will be astonished by what he is saying? Every opinion poll—NOP, the Wellings survey—shows that 73 per cent. of the nation is opposed to new clause 1 on good moral and religious grounds, yet the hon. Gentleman, who is a doctor, is supporting gay sex by adults—not only by consenting adults in private, but by groups. Does he appreciate how out of touch he is with the real world?

Dr. Harris: If it is asked whether there should be equalisation of the age of consent, opinion polls show a majority in favour. The House is above making legislation according to selective opinion polls. If we operated on that basis, we should not have seen the huge majority, rightly, against the reintroduction of capital punishment, among other things. We should not pander to prejudice, however inadvertently it is held by the population. This matter is a litmus test for the liberality of Government, political parties and individual Members, in which to prove that they will not kow-tow to apparent or real prejudice in society.
The provision that new clause 4 seeks to delete was introduced in 1965 into the Bill that was later adopted by Leo Abse. It was passed in the other place by a group of homophobic peers—that is clear from a reading of the record. Many Labour Members have as their hero Hugh Gaitskell, but on this issue, the real heroine was Baroness Gaitskell, who tried to make it clear to the peers who were prejudiced that the very acts referred to earlier were legal if performed by heterosexuals, were not punishable on a felony and by imprisonment, and there was no reason why they should be for consenting adults of any sexuality in private.
The major problem with this debate is that it is impossible—from some of the sedentary comments made by some Conservative Members, one can see why—for Governments to tackle the issue raised by new clause 4. Unlike the issues related to new clause 1, the subject of new clause 4 has not been debated in this House since 1967. The provision added by the peers in 1967—the extra provision covering privacy—was specifically not recommended by the Wolfenden report in 1956. This

House, to its shame, has never revisited it since. Therefore, one cannot say that new clause 4 is being rushed.
There are other examples of discrimination which I shall not go into, but of which I know the Minister of State and the Government are aware. However, I should like to explain why we, the proposers of new clause 4, want more progress made than the Minister outlined.
We should like Ministers to recognise—which, to the Government's credit, I think that they have already partly done—that we are debating a matter neither of anomalies nor of some strange historical quirks, but of outright discrimination, of the type that the Labour manifesto promised to abolish. Labour pledged to end
unjustified discrimination wherever it occurs",
even in matters that are difficult to debate, such as sexual offences law.
We should also like the Government to reaffirm that those discrimination issues do not touch upon child protection issues. We are debating issues concerning consenting adults acting in private, and the waters should not be muddied by raising other issues. We should therefore be grateful if the Minister would make a separate statement on reviewing the laws dealing with discrimination and ensure the right to equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals. The statement should be separate from a discussion of paedophilia and protection of the young—matters which many hon. Members of all parties are concerned about.

Dr. Julian Lewis: As a doctor, and therefore an expert in medical matters, will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? Is it or is it not the case that engaging in anal sex increases the chance of catching AIDS?

10 pm

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman needs to know that engaging in any sex—compared to abstinence—increases the risk of catching various diseases. We do not criminalise, for example—although the analogy is not very strong—dangerous sports. Neither, for the reason that he gave, should we criminalise consenting acts in private by people capable of giving consent. It is not the case that homosexual acts are inherently dangerous—which is why not one person in the ruling council of the British Medical Association or even one recognised medical or nursing establishment would agree with the hon. Gentleman's views, which cannot be based on a review of medical evidence. I feel that his views are based on an exploration of his own prejudice.
I urge Ministers to acknowledge that current legislation is discriminatory and not merely anomalous; to espouse the principle that the state should not seek to criminalise or intervene in consenting acts in private by adults and not involving injury; to clarify that consenting homosexual activities above the age of consent should not be associated directly in law with paedophile offences, and that there is no reason to do so; and, finally, to agree to a full review of discriminatory sexual offences, with a clear view to ending such discrimination during this Parliament.
I invite the Minister to give those undertakings to hon. Members from both sides of the House—including Conservative Members—who support new clause 4.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: (Blackpool, South): New clause 1 is about equality and social justice, not about privileges, special treatment, positive discrimination or removing safeguards for the vulnerable. The new clause is about ensuring our fellow citizens' equality before the law. The litmus test of a civilised and pluralist society is how it treat its minorities. We all belong to a minority of one sort or another.
The new clause is also not about whether hon. Members share or approve of the outlook of a specific minority. It is about whether, in a civilised society at the end of the 20th century, hon. Members should deny equality. Many hon. Members—not least Conservative Members—are disciples of J. S. Mill, who believed in keeping the state out of the private sphere of people's lives. Elizabeth I would not make windows into men's souls, yet Conservative Members often seem very unwilling not to make windows into the bedroom.
Like Conservative Members, current law makes such windows. What has been the result of maintaining a discriminatory age of consent? Today, one national newspaper said that it was
three decades of fear, shame and damage generated by an unequal law.
The unequal law isolates some teenagers. It also encourages intolerance among and between teenagers.
A national survey of homophobia in schools consulted 1,000 head teachers, 80 per cent. of whom reported verbal bullying. More than 25 per cent. reported assaults on pupils who were believed to be gay or bisexual. Surveys of gay teenagers confirm the same figures, and, as hon. Members have heard tonight, a significant proportion of them are pressured almost to suicide.
A discriminatory age of consent frets and fetters those who would give support to young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and others have referred to the views of Barnardos, Save the Children and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Above all, a discriminatory age of consent compounds the sense of isolation that affects many gay teenagers. Some Opposition Members may think that it is all about life style choices and metropolitan glitz, but it is not easy being a gay teenager in a small northern town, in the valleys or in the shires.
I remember a summer evening in France a number of years ago when I was 17 and a school friend told me and those of us who had gone on holiday together that he was gay, nervously waiting to see what the reaction would be. Thank God it was positive and supportive. I could not speak tonight without discharging a debt to his courage on that occasion. Today 16 and 17-year-olds up and down the country are wrestling with the same fears and decisions. We could assist them in coming to terms with and making their decisions. We should not load them down with premature criminality.
To maintain an unequal age of consent sends a message of discrimination that, however conscientious, civic-minded and productive members of society gay people are, they must continue to accept second-class status. It is a message that inevitably devalues their self-worth and humanity. Societies that are content to afford that status to minority groups consistently run the risk that, when turmoil or upheaval affects them, those discriminated against become the scapegoats.
Some have tried to suggest that maintaining a discriminatory age of consent is what the public want. I remind hon. Members that at various times the status quo wanted to keep slaves, public hangings and bear baiting, and to treat women as chattels and deny them an independent role in society. Society is what it is today because, at diverse times and in diverse places, the House has had the courage to move on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, in the past few days we have had the rather vague statement from some bishops about sending out wrong messages.

Mr. Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marsden: I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
The House is here to enact legislation for all faiths and for none. If we are talking about our Christian inheritance and belief, as some have done this evening, let me say that I share it, however imperfectly, as do many who support this change. Unfortunately, I do not have the marvellous hotline to the Almighty that some hon. Members have in respect of man-made law. I recall, however, a few phrases in the Bible, such as:
Judge not, that ye be not judged";
and:
In my Father's house are many mansions".
That is why, gently, I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough goes to the Primate of All England and that, when the Primate of All England goes into his private chapel in the palace over the river, he looks into his own heart and asks himself about the wrong messages that have been sent out to generations of young people struggling with their faith and sexuality by attitudes within the Church that have shut them out like the Samaritans of old.
Hon. Members must also look into their hearts and think about the message that they will send after tonight's vote to those who serve them in this place who are gay, lesbian or bisexual, to those among their constituents who come to them for help, to those among their friends, political supporters and associates, to their families and to those who are known and unknown, visible and invisible in their sexual orientation. Will they say, "Oh, we are sorry, but we have decided that we have to continue to make you feel just that little bit smaller, just that little bit more fearful, just that little bit more excluded"?
If there are people here willing to do that, so be it, but let them not delude themselves that they do not do it to real people of flesh and blood. Shakespeare said it all in "The Merchant of Venice":
Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? … If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us. do we not die?
I came here not to out the bard, but to praise him. I should like hon. Members to reflect on the wise words of Mr. Shakespeare and on the words of E. M. Forster, who said that we should "only connect". I ask hon. Members to reflect and to only connect.
When I wrote a few words about my sexuality recently in my local paper, among the correspondence that I received was a letter from a support group for parents of


lesbian, gay and bisexual children. Like Shakespeare, they put the issue more eloquently than I could:
We are all born in the same way and go when the time is right. It is what we can do in between with the very short time we have that matters most. Let us do this by treating all people as equal—and this means starting with our daughters and sons, doesn't it?
I urge the adoption of the new clause.

Sir Peter Lloyd: (Fareham): The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) spoke with considerable feeling. We can all sympathise with individuals in the circumstances he described.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) on tabling the new clause. I did not agree with everything she said, but I wholly agreed with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I hope that he will press his amendments and that the House will adopt them. The Minister may be right to say that the wording of the amendments is not correct, but that can be considered at greater leisure in another place.
The amendments deal with a far narrower issue than will the review the Minister says he wants to set up. It is not beyond the powers of their Lordships to judge whether they give effect to what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and those who support him want. Let the Lords decide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Some of my hon. Friends cheer me slightly too early. In 1994 I voted for 16 and I intend to do the same this evening. That is not because I believe that there is a particular age for male or female, heterosexual or homosexual—

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you and Mr. Deputy Speaker have a difficult task organising debates, but it must be placed on the record that there have been 15 speeches, and only two or three have given the clear case against gay sex at 16.

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has a complaint, the Order Paper is available. They should put an early-day motion on the Order Paper criticising me for my selection. I shall see that it is debated without delay.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I hope that I can finish my speech first.
Whatever age is selected, it will be too low for some young people and too high for others. There must be clarity in the law, and we have to settle on the age or ages that seem to provide maximum protection with the minimum harmful side effects.
I do not accept that, simply because 16 is the age of consent for heterosexual relationships, it must be the same for homosexual activity, but the distinguishing features are not so great as many of those who oppose the new clause think them to be. Teenage girls become pregnant, with devastating effects on their lives. That would argue a higher age of consent for girls, but, whatever the logic, raising it would surely not reduce their sexual activity at all. Indeed, it would only bring the law into contempt and make it harder for young girls, to obtain advice and guidance.
Similarly, homosexual activity carries considerable health risks, which again suggests a higher age than 16, but—again—if a young person is so inclined, the law is

less likely to stop him from starting that activity than it is to discourage him from seeking medical and moral advice. It is generally accepted that girls mature physically earlier than boys, and so they do, but that is a double-edged argument. If physical maturity is to be the determining point, the age of consent for girls at least would have to go down below 16.
Some of my hon. Friends say, "Ah"—particularly my female hon. Friends, I find—"the real point is that girls are so much more psychologically mature at 16 than boys." I am unconvinced of that—not as unconvinced as I was when I was 16, but I see no particular reason to think that boys are in much greater danger from older men than girls are.
It is said that boys can be sexually very ambivalent in their teens and thus particularly vulnerable to seduction by older men, which can make them permanently homosexual when they might otherwise have worked through their doubts and proclivities to a normal homosexual orientation, as most people would regard it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Heterosexual."' A normal heterosexual orientation. I am grateful. I will not have to tamper with Hansard.
10.15 pm
The evidence seems to be that those who are not homosexually inclined find homosexual activity repugnant; that those who are generally know it well before they are 16; and that those who are confused and ambivalent are not going to be fixated for life, one way or another, according to the nature of their sexual experience, if any, at the age of 16 or 17. Indeed, for those going through a temporary phase, the knowledge that they are doing so under the threat of prosecution—of their partner, if not of themselves—cannot be conducive to a satisfactory resolution of their uncertainties.
If the reply is that 16 and 17-year-olds are never prosecuted in practice—and that the law is just to ensure that older, exploitative partners can be—there are better and more honest ways of doing so, as provided by the amendments to new clause 1 and new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, which I hope will be extended in the House of Lords.
The age of consent properly seeks to protect children before they reach an age where they themselves can choose to be sexually active. Both sexes are now reaching that point earlier, largely because of earlier physical maturation. It makes no sense at all to extend that age of consent far beyond the point where many have, rightly or wrongly, started to engage in sexual relationships of their own volition—the majority heterosexual, the minority homosexual.
What is needed is a law that ensures that the young of both sexes are not drawn into relationships of either kind by older people exploiting positions of trust and influence. That is why I support amendment (a). The Government are unhappy with the wording, so let them put it right—it is a narrow point—in the House of Lords. I hope that they find a set of words that will ensure that the measure also covers those who organise or financially benefit—

It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [16 June] and the Resolution [18 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 129.

Division No. 311]
[10.19pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crausby, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Alexander, Douglas
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna


Allan, Richard
(Perth)


Allen, Graham
Curry, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Darvill, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ballard, Jackie
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Beard, Nigel
Dewson, Hilton


Begg, Miss Anne
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dismore, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Doran, Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dowd, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Duncan, Alan


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Body, Sir Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Boswell, Tim
Efford, Clive


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bradshaw, Ben
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fatchett, Derek


Brake, Tom
Fearn, Ronnie


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Galloway, George


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gapes, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caton, Martin
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gorrie, Donald


Clapham, Michael
Grant, Bernie


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grogan, John


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coleman, Iain
Hanson, David


Colman, Tony
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Cooper, Yvette
Harvey, Nick


Corbett, Robin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Corston, Ms Jean
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Cotter, Brian
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)





Hepburn, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hesford, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Hill, Keith
Mandelson, Peter


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoey, Kate
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hope, Phil
Martlew, Eric


Hopkins, Kelvin
Maxton, John


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Meale, Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Merron, Gillian


Howells, Dr Kim
Michael, Alun


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Milburn, Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mitchell, Austin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moffatt, Laura


Hurst, Alan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hutton, John
Moore, Michael


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkin, Bernard
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hassle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Olner, Bill


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Neill, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keetch, Paul
Pickthall, Colin


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pope, Greg


Key, Robert
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kirkwood, Archy
Prior, David


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Purchase, Ken


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Quin, Ms Joyce


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Lepper, David
Radice, Giles


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Linton, Martin
Rendel, David


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
(Hamilton S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sanders, Adrian


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


MacKay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)






Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tipping, Paddy


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Todd, Mark


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Touhig, Don


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Trickett, Jon


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Steinberg, Gerry
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wallace, James


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stinchcombe, Paul
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stott, Roger
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winnick, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stringer, Graham
Wood, Mike


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woodward, Shaun


Stunell, Andrew
Woolas, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Neil Gerrard and


Timms, Stephen
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.




NOES


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Arbuthnot, James
Hammond, Philip


Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)
Hawkins, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Hayes, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Heald, Oliver


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Horam, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Blunt, Crispin
Hunter, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Johnson Smith,


Breed, Colin
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burnett, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butterfill, John
Lansley, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Letwin, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Lidington, David


Clappison, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Loughton, Tim


(Rushcliffe)
Luff, Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dalyell, Tam
Mader, Sir David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Drew, David
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mudie, George


Evans, Nigel
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Faber, David
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
paisley, Rev Ian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Powell, Sir Raymond


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Red Wood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Robathan, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rogers, Allan


Gray, James
Rowlands, Ted


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David





Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tredinnick, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Trend, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyrie, Andrew


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wardle, Charles


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Waterson, Nigel


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Edward Leigh and


Thompson, William
Dr. Julian Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

MADAM SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 2, after 'sixteen', insert
'(except when one party is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, in which case both parties must have attained the age of eighteen).'.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 234.

Division No. 312]
[10.33 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Cotter, Brian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, James
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davidson, Ian


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Drew, David


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Edwards, Huw


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Ennis, Jeff


Brady, Graham
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Flight, Howard


Burnett, John
Flint, Caroline


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fraser, Christopher


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gale, Roger


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Cann, Jamie
Garnier, Edward


Chope, Christopher
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clappison, James
Gibb, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Godman, Dr Norman A


(Rushcliffe)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Collins, Tim
Gray, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Green, Damian






Greenway, John
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Randall, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rapson, Syd


Hammond, Philip
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hayes, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Heald, Oliver
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Rooney, Terry


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Rowlands, Ted


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ruffley, David


Home Robertson, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sanders, Adrian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Johnson Smith,
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Key, Robert
Snape, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Soames, Nicholas


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lansley, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Leigh, Edward
Stinchcombe, Paul


Letwin, Oliver
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Streeter, Gary


Lidington, David
Stunell, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Linton, Martin
Swayne, Desmond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, William


MacKay, Andrew
Timms, Stephen


Mackinlay, Andrew
Todd, Mark


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Mc Walter, Tony
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


McWilliam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Madel, Sir David
Wardle, Charles


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Waterson, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Webb, Steve


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Martlew, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wicks, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, Austin
Willetts, David


Moss, Malcolm
winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Woodward, Shaun


Olner, Bill
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Joe Ashton and


Palmer, Dr Nick
Mr. Gerald Bermingham.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atkins, Charlotte


Adams, Mrs Irene (paisley N)
Ballard, Jackie


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony


Aisworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Douglas
Begg, Miss Anne


Allan, Richard
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Grahan
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Bob





Boateng, Paul
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Borrow, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Harvey, Nick


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bradshaw, Ben
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Brake, Tom
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hepburn, Stephen


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hesford, Stephen


Browne, Desmond
Hill, Keith


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Buck, Ms Karen
Hood, Jimmy


Burden, Richard
Hope, Phil


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hopkins, Kelvin


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Caplin, Ivor
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Casale, Roger
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Caton, Martin
Humble, Mrs Joan


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hurst, Alan


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Clapham, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr Lynda
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Clelland, David
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Clwyd, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Coaker, Vernon
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Colman, Tony
Keeble, Ms Sally


Connarty, Michael
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cooper, Yvette
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keetch, Paul


Corston, Ms Jean
Kemp, Fraser


Crausby, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kingham, Ms Tess


Darvill, Keith
Kirkwood, Archy


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Laxton, Bob


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Levitt, Tom


Dismore, Andrew
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dobbin, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Donohoe, Brian H
Livingstone, Ken


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lock, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Love, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fearn, Ronnie
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonnell, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Foulkes, George
McNulty, Tony


Galloway, George
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mallaber, Judy


Gilroy, Mrs linda
Mandelson, peter


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Maxton, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Meale, Alan


Gorrie, Donald
Merron, Gillian


Grant, Bernie
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Milburn, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Miller, Andrew


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Gunnell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moore, Michael


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri(Cardiff W)






Morley, Elliot
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Norris, Dan
Soley, Clive


Oaten, Mark
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Perham, Ms Linda
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Stringer, Graham


Plaskitt, James
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pope, Greg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Quin, Ms Joyce
Touhig, Don


Quinn, Lawrie
Trickett, Jon


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rendel, David
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vaz, Keith


Ruane, Chris
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wood, Mike


Sawford, Phil
Woolas, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Shaw, Jonathan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

It being after six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, further consideration stood adjourned.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

HOMELESSNESS (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Homelessness (Decisions on Referrals) (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.

HOMELESSNESS

That the draft Homelessness (Decisions on Referrals) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.

FOOD PROTECTION

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1342), dated 29th May 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Special Grant Report (No. 35) (HC 758), which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at the Civic Centre, Merthyr Tydfil on Monday 13th July at Eleven o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the New Economic Agenda for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)), proceedings being interrupted at half past Four o'clock—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Quentin Davies be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Sir Alastair Goodlad be added to the Committee.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. James Cran be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Oliver Heald be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CATERING COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Stephen Day be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mrs. Jacqui Lait be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Damian Green be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Mr. David Faber be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL FFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Philip Hammond be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mrs. Eleanor Laing be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mrs. Caroline Spelman be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mrs. Jacqui Lait be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Joan Walley be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Ms Linda Perham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. John Bercow be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Dr. Julian Lewis be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Fishing and Cockle Industry (Essex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. David Amess: (Southend, West): This time two weeks ago, I had the privilege to lead a small delegation to Brussels to meet Commissioner Emma Bonino. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain exactly where the buck stops.
Following meetings with local fishermen and cocklers, there was clearly some concern as to where ultimate responsibility lay. I mean it in good faith when I say that I am not pointing the accusing finger. I am trying to be the honest broker. I would say that Miss Bonino received us most courteously. She made no disparaging remarks about Her Majesty's Government since 1 May 1997, or about the previous Government. However, I should tell the Minister that, on a number of issues that we raised, Miss Bonino shook her head and said, "These matters are the responsibility of the national Government."
I wish to run through the issues tonight. I ask the Minister to reflect on them. If he does not have time tonight to respond to them in detail, perhaps he will write to me. I simply want to know whether, in the Minister's judgment, the issues that I raise tonight are his responsibility or those of the Commission. I told Miss Bonino that I would send her a copy of the Hansard of this debate, and she said that she would read it and reflect on what the Minister says.
As we all know, fishing is mentioned in the Domesday book. In the delegation, I was delighted to have with me a representative of local fishermen, Mr. Paul Gilson, and a representative of the local cocklers, Councillor Tony Meddle—not a councillor of Southend borough council, but a town councillor. Both gentlemen acquitted themselves extremely well during the meeting with Miss Bonino. I am delighted to see in the Chamber tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).
The main message to the Minister tonight is that there are plans to amend the common fisheries policy. A questionnaire that may have been instigated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was directed to local fishermen, following a delegation that I took to Brussels with—this is a delicate matter—the previous Member for Castle Point. I congratulate all the fishermen, especially those in Southend, on their involvement, and on their valuable suggestions and proposals.
To the fishermen, the main thrust of the meeting with Commissioner Bonino was the regional management of stocks. Local fishermen have voiced their concerns to me on several occasions about the problems of stock conservation in their area. They feel that, ever since the inception of the common fisheries policy, the inshore fleet has been treated unfairly, especially since the majority of the United Kingdom's track record for sole was established by the inshore fleet in the south east. MAFF scientists have said that what the inshore fishermen take is insignificant. In the example of Gallidoro, at one stage, one man owned as much sole as the whole of the non-sector, which is pretty extraordinary.
Fishermen have claimed that, over the years, attempts were made by the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee to correct that alleged injustice. They have come up with a plan for the regional management of fish stocks as an alternative to the CFP. Two weeks ago, in Brussels, we presented that to Commissioner Bonino. She said that, as far as she was concerned, anything inside the six-mile limit was entirely the responsibility of national Governments. Will the Minister clarify that point, and say whether he accepts what Miss Bonino said?
Local fishermen in Southend are keen to have a greater role on this issue. They see article 17(1)(a) and (b) of the new regulations as the way forward. The article states:
Member States may take measures for the conservation and management of stocks in the case of strictly local stocks which are of interest solely to the fishermen of the Member State concerned, or in the form of conditions or detailed arrangements designed to limit the catches by technical measures supplementing those laid down in the Community legislation on fisheries, or going beyond the minimum requirements laid down in the said legislation, provided that such measures apply solely to the fishermen of the Member State concerned, are compatible with Community law, and are in conformity with the Common Fisheries Policy.
The upshot is that Commissioner Bonino thinks it entirely possible, without our passing fresh legislation, for us to embark on the regional management of stocks.
Our local fishermen are honest, hard-working people, and their main objective is the preservation of stocks. They want the fish to come to them, rather than vice versa. At the moment they are suffering poor catches because the fish are not in their area. They are also the victims of the continuing conflict between vessels of under and over 10 m—between small and large boats, in other words. The boats in Southend are under 17 m.
Will the Minister encourage and endorse voluntary agreements between member states—Commissioner Bonino said that that was within his power—to conserve fish stocks? Will he support local Southend fishermen in fostering links with their European competitors?
The main issue to do with dredging, as the hon. Member for Colchester will know, concerns the impact of increased silting on fish stocks. Local fishermen tell me that it is having an adverse impact on the size of fish and on boats' ability to catch them. Will the Minister undertake scientific investigations into the impact of increased silting on fish stocks? No doubt he will tell me that they are already under way, but I am not sure that the investigations cover everything that the fishermen want analysed. Everything that I have said so far is supported by the "NFFO News".
As the Minister knows, the tradition of cockling in Leigh goes back more than 150 years. Cockling emerged from the business of fishing for mussels. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is unfortunately away at the Council of Europe, has given me a useful document in which tribute is paid to the sterling work of the cocklers during the second world war. It recounts how, on 31 May 1940, a flotilla of six cockle boats —Defender, Letitia, Renown, Endeavour, Reliance and Resolute—left Southend to take part in Operation Dynamo. Over eight hours, those boats embarked 1,200 troops from beyond Dunkirk jetty, transferring them to larger ships offshore.
During the early hours of 1 June, Letitia's rudder was smashed, and it was taken in tow. Renown broke down, and made fast to the end of Letitia's tow. Half an hour

later, it hit a mine, and her crew—Frank Osborne, Leslie Osborne and Harry Noakes, who were cousins, and Harold Graham Porter, a young naval rating from Birmingham—were lost.
At a ceremony 32 years later, where my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East gave the address, Leigh established a public memorial to the brave men who took part at Dunkirk and to those who lost their lives, to complement the plaques in St. Clement's church, Leigh, and the Methodist church, New road—thanks to the generosity of the donors to the appeal launched 10 months previously. The memorial, in fibre-glass bronze, remains in the beautiful church. It was designed and executed by Cyril Smith of Leigh Hill, and stands on a Cornish granite plinth. The sub-base was supplied by S. Stibbard and Sons.
I have mentioned that because some people have the impression that hon. Members mention fishermen or cocklers out of selfishness, but the Minister would not dispute that fishermen and cocklers were responsible for brave acts in the second world war, not only in my constituency, but in others. The families of the people I have mentioned are still cockling and fishing in my constituency, and this morning I was privileged to be aboard Renown, where I spoke to local cockle men who gave me examples of exactly what goes on and what their difficulties are.
At the end of the last century, 21 boats in Leigh-on-Sea were cockling. The suction dredge, colloquially known as the "hoover", was introduced in the 1970s. At the meeting on 9 June, Councillor Tony Meddle spoke to Commissioner Bonino. I praise the attempts of local cocklers to conserve their stocks—they have realised that spat falls have declined, so they have fallen in with the policies of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee to try to conserve stocks.
Last year, local cocklers were permitted to fish for only three days a week. This year, that has been reduced to two days, during five months of the year. The KESFC has allowed for flexibility, and the days can be taken at the cocklers' discretion, depending on weather conditions and other such factors. Under the Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1993, permitted landings are limited to 500 baskets per fishing period.
Councillor Meddle raised the subject silting with Miss Bonino in the hope that we might get money from Europe to pay for the dredging of Leigh creek. Will the Minister seriously consider authorising a scientific study into the impact of increased silting on cockle stocks? Given that Southend sadly has increasingly high unemployment—much higher than in other parts of Essex—will he back another Department's attempt to get us European money under stage 2?
The issuing of licences and temporary licences is the responsibility of the KESFC. I urge that organisation to take into account the necessity for local stock conservation when issuing licences.
I am very worried about the future of the industry, which is uncertain. I am concerned about the high level of unemployment. The local cockle industry is of fundamental importance to the local economy. It is a real joy to go down to old Leigh and see people from, in particular, the east end of London enjoying their shellfish, especially cockles. The industry employs more than


100 people. It is seasonal, in the summer months, but it is a great tradition. It is important that we keep the cockle industry alive.
I want to underline the present position. Since the introduction of the new suction techniques, the industry is 3 per cent. more efficient than it was last year, but the level of cockle stock has not increased by 3 per cent.
I do not want to introduce a sour note into the debate, but a rather misleading leaflet has been issued by politicians—not of my party. That leaflet is factually incorrect. The two parties involved in it have somehow given the impression that they did not vote to increase restrictions on fishing for cockles on the foreshore from 300 m to 400 m. but they jolly well did. The restriction relates to the months from July to September. I will not dwell too long on the matter, but it does not add much to the debate. The headline, "Cockle war in Southend", is absolutely ridiculous, and again does not add much to the debate.
Perhaps on another occasion the Minister might consider the issue of cockle licences. Local cockle men are concerned that they cannot automatically pass on their licences if they have an accident or, for whatever reason, can no longer fish for cockles. They want to be able to pass on their licences to other members of their families, rather than the licence being sold out with the family. Cockling in Leigh is very much a family-oriented business. During the general election campaign last year, it seemed that every other house I called on had someone related to a cockier. They feel that, historically, licences have remained within families living in Leigh, and that that should continue.
A 1992 document entitled "Thames Cockle Fishery" contains two points dealing with hygiene legislation, which local cocklers warned about in 1992. They believe that our European partners are not as tough in enforcing regulations as we are. Last week, I sat on a Committee talking about regulations, on which most hon. Members seemed to feel that we were tough but other European countries were not. The document predicted that if the situation was not contained, vessels from all parts of the UK would move in to take cockles from the Thames estuary. Now, in 1998, we are seeing the impact of the change, exactly as was predicted in 1992.
Today there have been two completely different emotional subjects, one discussed in the House and one played out in France. Although some may say that cockling and fishing are not of significance tonight, they are very important to my constituency, and also in Kent. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who cannot be here tonight, has been working closely with cocklers. It is an issue of desperate importance. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the buck stops.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: (Mr. Elliot Morley): Although this issue may not be as great as others that have been discussed tonight or as that being played out in France, it is very important. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is right to raise it on behalf of his constituents. I congratulate him on securing this

Adjournment debate, and on the constructive way in which he put his case. I hope that I can answer most of his questions. However, if he feels that I have missed any of the points he made, he could write to me about them or any other issue, and I should be only too happy to give him a detailed response.
I stress that the Government are a strong supporter of inshore fisheries, which are important because they maintain a large number of jobs. They often have a low impact on stocks, and we want to give them as much support as we possibly can. The hon. Gentleman referred to Mrs. Bonino, who will read the report of this debate. She is a formidable Commissioner, and I want to put on record our gratitude for the assistance that she has given the Government in dealing with the many problems in the fishing industry that we have had to tackle.
I can give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer to his question about who has responsibility for this fishery. The common fisheries policy covers the totality of fisheries in the European Union, but there is an element of flexibility for national measures. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have total control over the six-mile limit, which is an exclusive fisheries zone for United Kingdom vessels. Within the six-mile limit, it is possible for the sea fisheries committees, such as the Kent and Essex SFC, to make local byelaws to regulate fishing activity within their districts. Most committees have adopted regulations to help conserve stocks.
The byelaws may impose more rigorous requirements than Community legislation, but they must not undermine Community legislation by setting lower standards. Generally speaking, that does not happen, because the fishermen in those areas are keen to apply high standards. United Kingdom Fisheries Departments may adopt national measures for the regulation of fishing activity by UK-registered vessels wherever they fish, but such measures cannot apply to vessels from other member states outside the six-mile and 12-mile zones.
I appreciate that, in return for adopting more rigorous conservation measures, inshore fishermen want to be exempt from quota management. I have had a number of representations on that. I regret to say that that is not a realistic aim. Under Community rules, all landings made by UK fishing vessels must count against quota. The same applies in other member states. That will certainly remain the position until 2002, and even then it is likely that there will still be some form of TACs and quota system as part of relative stability, which is important to the UK industry.
The challenge is to find a way of marrying the aspirations of the inshore fleet with the overriding obligation to conserve stocks. The hon. Gentleman mentioned regional management. I am attracted by that approach, and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have recently produced a joint position paper, which I am discussing with them.
My officials have also met the hon. Gentleman's local fishermen to discuss ways of achieving greater flexibility in the Kent and Essex SFC area. Voluntary arrangements can be made, and we are willing to talk to the Commission and to his local fishermen about the measures that they want and that can be operated within the rules. MAFF officials are already exploring such measures with them.
I understand the concerns of the inshore fishery about sole. It is true that there is a small total allowable catch because of increased activity in the fishery, coupled with reductions in the quota because of pressure on stocks. We have tried to secure additional fish for the inshore fleet through underpinning and international swaps. As a result, an extra 32 tonnes of North sea sole are being made available to the inshore fleet, which is an increase of more than 20 per cent. on the quota that it might otherwise have received. We try to take into account the sector's particular problems.
I also understand the hon. Gentleman's points about the impact of dredging. He is right to say that we insist on research into that impact. We have also acted on fishermen's concerns about recent proposals by ARC Marine to undertake core sampling on Maplin sands as part of a review of applications made previously by Civil and Marine.
We have reaffirmed to ARC Marine the concern that the Ministry expressed previously about the disturbance that dredging was likely to cause to crustacea beds and fish spawning in that area. We shall continue to oppose the issue of any production licence by the Crown unless measures can be agreed that will minimise the impact on particular inshore fisheries. We are always willing to consider the inshore fleet's concern; if necessary, of course, the provision exists to undertake research into the impact of dredging.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned European grants in relation to dredging. That is a more complicated matter, about which I shall have to write to him, as I cannot deal with it in the two minutes that remain.
The final and most important matter is cockles. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Essex cockle fishery. The Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee has a key role to play in its management. The fact remains, however, that it has been a very bad two years for recruitment to the cockle industry. The Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee has taken action to conserve stocks. I support that action; the committee has acted in a responsible way.
It is difficult when the revocation of temporary licences and limiting the number of days that the cockle fishermen can fish are involved. However, unless effective action is taken to deal with the serious problem of recruitment, there will be no cockle fishery, so such action has to be undertaken to ensure that there are sustainable stocks for future fishermen. I very much hope that the sea fisheries committee is successful. Indeed, it has been successful in its management, and local fishermen—the hon. Gentleman's constituents—will benefit from increased prosperity through a sustainable and well-managed fishery.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.